That's why it's called Faith -- ...it's only in your head, or your own personal beliefs ; For better or for worse, or for right or wrong
That's why it's called Faith -- ...it's only in your head, or your own personal beliefs ; For better or for worse, or for right or wrong
There are only a book shelf full of historical sources that old.
And at least one of the sources, Josephus, references Jesus multiple times.
One of the references in Josephus disputed. But, there is another one that references is virtually undisputed by any credible expert in the world.
here is a reasonable starting point for the inquiry. If you read further down at the link it discusses the evidence of the historicity of Jesus.
An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4]although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][nb 6]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[nb 8]
The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts. Historicity, by contrast as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.
"What is the historical evidence?"
Well, the bunny with the chocolate eggs. 5 years after Jesus's death kids were already looking for those tasty little treatments. It is in the books...
Consider that the Islamic faith considers Jesus to have been a real person. They do not recognize him as God of course, just a prophet of God.
josephus was a historian, he recorded history.
that is not easter bunny material. Josephus is part of the historical record we have.
not sure how anyone can poke fun at that.
either we have a historical record or we don't.
there are 2 passages.. One is disputed by scholars... one is accepted by virtually every scholar.
An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 1 of 2)
An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 2 of 2)
Written by Tim O'Neill
Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good. Follow his blog at Armarium Magnum.
Skeptic Bart Ehrman on Whether Jesus Really Existed
Written by Brandon Vogt
Brandon Vogt is a bestselling author, blogger, and speaker. He's also the founder of StrangeNotions.com. Brandon has been featured by several media outlets including NPR, CBS, FoxNews, SiriusXM, and EWTN. He converted to Catholicism in 2008, and since then has released several books, including The Church and New Media (Our Sunday Visitor, 2011), Saints and Social Justice (Our Sunday Visitor, 2014), and RETURN (Numinous Books, 2015). He works as the Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Catholic Ministries. Brandon lives with his wife, Kathleen, and their five children in Central Florida. Follow him at BrandonVogt.com or connect through Twitter at @BrandonVogt.
Popular News Site Claims Jesus Never Existed
Written by Jon Sorensen
Jon Sorensen is the Director of Marketing for Catholic Answers, the largest lay-run apostolate of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States. He earned his bachelor’s degree in 3D Animation and Visual Communications in 2004 from Platt College, Ontario. Before coming to Catholic Answers, he worked in the automotive industry producing television commercials and corporate video. He has also produced motion graphics for several feature-length films. Follow Jon through his website, JonSorenson.net.
Bayes Theorem Proves Jesus Existed (And That He Didn’t)
Written by Dr. William M. Briggs
Dr. William M. Briggs is an Adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University, where he acquired both an M.S. in Atmospheric Science and a Ph.D. in Statistics. In addition to teaching, William works as a consultant with specialties in medicine, the environment, and the philosophy of, and over-certainty in, science. He blogs at wmbriggs.com.
Was Jesus a Roman Fiction?
Written by Jimmy Akin
Jimmy Akin is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a member on the Catholic Answers Speakers Bureau, a weekly guest on the global radio program, Catholic Answers LIVE, and a contributing editor for Catholic Answers Magazine. He's the author of numerous publications, including the books The Fathers Know Best (Catholic Answers, 2010); The Salvation Controversy (Catholic Answers, 2001); and Mass Confusion: The Do's & Don'ts of Catholic Worship (Catholic Answers, 1999). Many of Jimmy's books are also integrated into the Logos software. Follow Jimmy's writing at JimmyAkin.com.
Questioning the Historicity of Jesus
Dr. Richard Carrier
Written by Dr. Richard Carrier
Dr. Richard Carrier is a published historian and philosopher, specializing in the philosophy of naturalism and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome. He's a veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard with a B.A. from U.C. Berkeley in History and Classical Civilizations, and a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University. He has written extensively for the Secular Web and in various periodicals and books, and discussed his views in public all over the country and on TV. He is best known as the author of Sense and Goodness without God, Not the Impossible Faith, and Why I Am Not a Christian. His latest book is Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. He is currently working on his next books, On the Historicity of Jesus Christ, The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire, and Science Education in the Early Roman Empire. Follow Richard through his website, RichardCarrier.info.
Jesus Would Have Been an Atheist?
Written by Brandon Vogt
Brandon Vogt is a bestselling author, blogger, and speaker. He's also the founder of StrangeNotions.com. Brandon has been featured by several media outlets including NPR, CBS, FoxNews, SiriusXM, and EWTN. He converted to Catholicism in 2008, and since then has released several books, including The Church and New Media (Our Sunday Visitor, 2011), Saints and Social Justice (Our Sunday Visitor, 2014), and RETURN (Numinous Books, 2015). He works as the Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Catholic Ministries. Brandon lives with his wife, Kathleen, and their five children in Central Florida. Follow him at BrandonVogt.com or connect through Twitter at @BrandonVogt.
Richard Dawkins: ‘Jesus Would Have Been an Atheist if He Had Known What We Know Today’
Billy Hallowell Oct 25, 2011
"Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, "
That is 5-6 decades after the alleged events. Hell, some people writing the story of WW2 today, would easily deny the existence of concentration camps, that is what 6 decades do to historical reporting...
I take the chocolate bunny over Josephus...
But since we are throwing around Wikilinks:
What do you think 2000 years of Catholic copying of ancient manuscripts did to original texts?
1. but other than the letters in the bible and the other books which are not canon... how many historical books do you think we have from that era.
Josephus is one of the few books sill around from that era that is not part of the bible or one of the other "religious" letters or text.
2. regarding changes... that is a good question. They found different manuscripts at different times. They could see if things had changed.
as I have noted one of the passages in Josephus about Jesus has been disputed because it looks like a clause about Jesus being divine was added. However the other passage about Jesus is virtually undisputed.
Here is an evidence for God:
whether Jesus is a figure in history or whether he was God are separate questions.
There are very clear principles to be met before the historicity of anyone or providence of anything becomes valid.
Bible Jesus doesn't meet with a single one of those principles. Not a single one.
Although the period prior to, during and immediately after the supposed time of Jesus was replete with historical writers, chroniclers and their texts, non contain any mention or evidence for Jesus anywhere within them.
There is no primary evidence. No contemporaneous record or mention of his life or death, of Christ, nor indeed of Christians or Christianity at all. No eyewitness accounts whatsoever. No other kind of first-hand or independent or corroborating record like there is in every case before historical authenticity can be formalized .
Bible Jesus fits with myth and legend not fact and reality.
Jesus is fake news and post truth. The imaginary friend in the room.
Problems are an artifact could be fake. Any real record could be destroyed purposely.
Jesus perhaps was not worth to mentioned in mainstream history until very late stage.
Besides there were probably (most likely) too many competing preachers/teachers from various religious cults/sects during the era.
After all, logically Paul should be a key figure, especially he himself once killed believers of Jesus, who were not violent ones with any intention of hurting others. Only because they had a firm conviction of a new belief.
Of course, that the whole picture/process about Jesus could be a fake news. Which was especially uneasy, when encountering serious objection from the mainstream Judaism believers like Paul.
However, obviously his teachings/theory surely was a believable/attractive theory to the believers, making them worth to die for the theory.
imo, the probability of the historical Jesus should not be overly underestimated.
After all, there would be almost always having an originator named/known for every single religion.
A bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., is engraved with what may be the world's first known reference to Christ. The engraving reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."
Guys like Jesus probably lived.
They were 'enlightened', they had a higher level of consciousness and wisdom.
This made them appear god like to others.
However they could not perform Miracles.
Miracles were added to make the stories about them more interesting otherwise no one would care or take notice.
2000 years from now will they be adding miracles to the Surf Report?
I can remember there were timeline charts explaining the earth was created just 6,000 years ago.
[Amazing] Cave paintings: Up to 40,000 years Old
[Amazing] Earliest music instruments found - Over 42,000 years old
I saw an interesting documentary on TV about finding the tomb of the High Priest of the Temple at the time of the crucifixion. Inside the elaborately carved sarcophacos were 2 iron nails. Tests conducted on these nails proved that they had been used in a crucifixion. Why they were put in the tomb nobody knows.
The thread asks What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?
It isn't Could a magician called Jesus Christ or anyone at all who fancied themselves as the son of god have lived and died?
Nevertheless, at the supposed time of Jesus Christ there is still nothing whatsoever that supports either of those descriptions existing as a fact in history.
If you want to guess there may have been someone who called themselves Christ or Jesus at the time Christ is supposed to have lived then it is still not mentioned anywhere in anything of historical relevance. That says a lot as even some of the most humble and worthless and mundane events were written about .
There is nothing, zilch, nada in the way of historicity for Jesus Christ.
Sadly an original copy of Josephus writings is not known to exist. All that is available are manuscripts presumably hand copied from the original. How old are the copies. They must post-date the establishment of the Christian church by Paul.
What's always puzzled me is why the authors of the King James Bible, who took the trouble, while they were busy translating away, I presume from Latin, to come up with nice English names like Adam, Eve, Peter Paul Mary etc. for the nice Jewish folks in the bible, just stick with the theme. For consistency, instead of retaining the name "Jesus" that must have been in the Latin version (otherwise they would had to have pulled that one right out of their asses), why didn't they remain consistent with their theme and go with something like Robert or Byron, Maynard, Oscar or even Osbert, as in Osbert Christ? Kind of a nice ring to it, don't you think?
On a related topic, one on which the Bible is no help, have any of you ever wondered what Jesus's Drag name was. Were he alive today I'd suggest, "Virgin Territory" would be a good one to go with .
You are dealing with a fairly ignorant poster-- i wouldn't even respond. Good info by the way!
I think there is more evidence of his existence than we know about. But I think that it
Miracles are possible from enlightened people.
He made a blind man see and a lame man walk.
Did he walk on water and feed 5000 people with one loaf of bread and one fish...
Did Manna fall from Heaven for the Israelites when they were in the desert?
Did Moses make a staff turn into a snake?
Dunno. I don't doubt miracles were performed, but like yourself; it's quite possible that some of the things he did were exaggerated and some things were created.
It's tough to say what is real and isn't. We are dependent on the accuracy of the monks that recorded the events. And then.....the Catholic church found it necessary to eliminate specific books from the Bible at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. I think the Vatican has numerous scrolls and books related to Jesus in their basement that are hidden away and kept from public view because it doesn't fit their ideal image of Jesus. I think he was married to Mary Magdalene. And all the disciples had girlfriends but that is never mentioned in the Bible.
Every time you see Jesus represented he is always uptight and formal. But those kind of people don't develop followers. I am sure he had a sense of humor and was quite charismatic.
But we'll never know. It doesn't matter to me though. Because the lessons and values he preached are still valid regardless of the historical record.......Just my .02.
I was raised as a Christian and believe much of the teachings. But do I think he was literally the son of God ? No. No more than the rest of us.
Was he a great man and teacher ? Yes undoubtably.
I think that beliefs, can and should evolve as time passes.
Many have died because of man's twisted interpretation of religion, usually for their own evil ends.
But many have found comfort in good teachings.
Christianity is based on Jesus being "God in the flesh". Without that it's nothing and to adhere to its beliefs is nonsense and a waist of time, futile.
I think that was the argument the Apostle Paul wrote about in 1st Corinthians.
Jesus is the product of Christianity, not the source of it.
One among the first 3 was just like, Paul.
Roza Bal is the place where Yuz Asaf(Jesus Christ) was supposedly buried.
The problems of the world today are very different from olden times. For example there is a huge surge in human population. The population in India was 350 million 30-40 years ago and is now 1.2 billion for instance. If that trend continues India's population will triple again in a few decades !! This growth is clearly not sustainable by the planet's resources.
To put just this problem into a religious context, one may well ask why the Catholic Church will not change it's teaching on contraception. This is a good example of well meant rules getting to be out of date. But they can't change. The rules have become fossilised.
There is a possibility that good things and good teachings come from Nature, our human nature included.
The evolution process and practices of religion historically could not completely override or overshadow the nature's law and force.
In other words, it would be possible that good things might be merely manifestation of the nature, rather than contribution of religions.
The term "Christian" or "Christians" was first used to describe Paul's converts at Antioch, the Greek word Christos was a translation for the Hebrew word for Messiah.
Literally a follower of the Messiah or Christ. The term denotes Divinity.
Christianity or the Church is the product and sole property of Jesus. He paid for it.
Religion is like a template to mould ones baser instincts to.
At least Christianity is fairly positive
love not hate unlike some.
Whoever Paul might have actually been he was not an eye witness. He was developing his missives well after the supposed life time of Jesus.
So once again it is stuff which is not contemporaneous, first hand or verifiable nor to be frank, the product of a mentally well balanced person unless it was written as fiction. Anyone who reads Paul while maintaining a grain of common sense would immediately see why.
If you say Paul invented Christians and or Christianity, then you do indeed confirm how Jesus is the product of Paul's Christianity not the source.
And of course it goes without saying that because the person calling himself Paul says something in the Bible, it doesn't mean that what Paul says in the Bible is true or real, any more than what C.S.Lewis says in The Chronicles of Narnia is true or real.
The Jesus character was the Messiah, first crafted by the writings of messianic Jewish sects separating themselves from Judaism before Paul came along. So it could be said they were Christians before Christ was later re-invented by Christians.
if anyone holds the copyright on Jesus, it must be the early dissenting Jews.
The term Christian was not first used by Paul but was used in mockery, not to denote divinity.
The rest, as they say, is show business and the Bible, being much the same things.
What do you consider "well after" a few months, less than 3 years? Paul aka Saul of Tarsus was very much alive during the life of Jesus and active in the Sanhedrin, the ruling theological council of the Hebrews. He was used to persecute the Church, Christians after Jesus' death, and was the instigator in the stoning of Stephen. He was feared by the Apostles and early Church prior to his conversion.
You in retrospect some 2000 years later want to decide the veracity of early Christian writings, when they have already been verified by the early Church. If the early Church would have deemed Paul a fraud his writings wouldn't be in the Bible today.
Gospel of Mary, P. Oxyrhynchus L 3525.
I think the whole issue would be this argument cannot be easily defined as commonly expected.
I would suggest one of the effective approaches as follows:
Since the early believers were willing martyrs and were executed by the Romans authority, why didn't the authority just simply investigated and provided evidences in order to clarify this figure of historical Jesus had never existed.
The evidences could be collected and supplied by both some doubtful believers (with little conviction) and non-believers, from various angles/aspects.
Obviously, this approach would be the most direct and effective to disqualify whatever stories, any kind, about the existence of Jesus. If the authority can do that!
If not, the authority could even possibly make up some probable evidences. AT least, writings, books, or court cases against believers, whether succeeded or failed cases.
Just similar to what the authority did to Jesus, opened many court cases for so many very early Christian martyrs. These cases would have been recorded naturally in the historical books, stating None of them could provide evidence for the existence of a living Jesus.
It would be almost absolutely impossible that the authority didn't know how to do that, or didn't want to do that at all.
Unless, that knew very likely when doing so they could make the situation even much worse. Therefore, no any record was written down in any books, purposely. That could well be a planned outcome by the authority.
That No record is the best record! Or whatever useful records such as for prosecuting early Christian martyrs had been completely eliminated intentionally.
Purpose - Maximum uncertainty! LOL
Justin was once a Stoic-in-training, then trying others, and finally a convert to Christian after observing certain Stoic behaviour/virtues actually witnessed in believers. (Page 190 http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/stoicism-in-early-christianity/335281)
Christians were viewed as true Stoics in the Roman purview. (Page 188)
Both Marcus and Galen (Marcus' personal physician) were very well-known Stoics.
Galen considered Christianity like a third-rate philosophy, and Christians displaying some features like philosophers. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/galen_on_jews_and_christians.htm
It seemed they both didn't even challenge the fact whether Jesus was in reality a living figure. That's weird!
50 years well after.
Of which period just 6 of the 13 letters of Paul can be substantiated enough to make them only potentially authentic.
So Paul or Saul or whatever the pen name or true name was, is writing in an era when the history of a religion starts to get cobbled together. The product of which is the mythical Jesus.
But this is at least 50 years after the totally unverified life and death of the same Jesus who was supposed to have already invented it!
So he was alive during the suppositious time of Jesus when such tales, such exceptional events, such world changing times abounded that a God actually lived on Earth, yet nothing whatsoever is written, not a mention not a word, by Paul or anyone else in all the voluminous records and chronicles until at least 50 years later when those fantastical tales begin to be written down. Like JK Rowling would have Harry Potter developing in her head for a good many years no doubt.
Christian writings have veracity because the church says Christian writings have veracity. A pointless and meaningless circular argument. Stuff does not get veracity that way.
It is known how most letters attributed to Paul were forged in the name of Paul. The complete string of fake letters between Paul and Seneca for example.
That these epistles attributed to Paul were written in the 50's CE and one or many people definitely lived to author them is obviously true.
That does not mean the first person narrative of Paul or Saul or whoever portrayed in those letters actually existed.
I think you could justifiably argue he has slightly more attestation than Jesus who has non at all, but that evidence is far from fulfilling the characteristics which veracity requires for establishing a person's historical authenticity.
There are no credible accounts of a Bible Jesus and church stories including those associated to Paul are rendered, by both their lack of providence and outrageous claims, as simply that - stories.
Things that do all the things ducks do are ducks.
Stories that do all the things fiction does, are fiction.
imo, Jesus was very successful in 3 points. Both are marketing related. (Traditionally a student to learn a philosophy system like Stoicism would have to go to the teacher's place (except going to very wealthy families), requiring to paying tuition fee. )
1st, he popularised the theory of Stoicism by translating it into popular concepts that the general public in the marketplace where he personally preached can easily understand and accept.
2nd, he also send travelling evangelists everywhere spreading his message.
To make his messages even more popular, he also converted Stoicism, a practical philosophy, into a new religion. Incorporating some miracles including 'resurrection of the death', , parables including even heaven/ eternity/ etc.
3rd, he was also absolutely keen in converting Judaism believers to his followers through his fulfillment of OT's many predictions/promises.
A bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., is engraved with what may be the world's first known reference to Christ. The engraving reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."
Perhaps we should just focus mainly on the books of Gospels.
Paul could be a high ranking official appointed/assiged by the authority/establishment for creating a new religion nowadays called Christianity.
One of the most unresolved mystery would be the process of how the early "Jesus-believers" hiding behind close-door to avoid authority's persecution would suddenly change their mind of fear and insecurity, became part of the "Paul's Christians" openly gathering in public places for worshiping God.
We might never know/understand. LOL
Furthermore, the logic of calling "Jesus' believers" as "Christians", as recorded 3 times in Paul's letters, should be fairly weak, theologically.
There should be just One Christ, who saved the world for his work done to All others. Once his work is done, it's one-off salvation work for All others.
There should be no need for another Christ in order to do/repeat the same work or any additional work. Otherwise, that would indicate/ prove that Jesus didn't do enough work for saving the world, and he needed someone else to back him up, doing more follow-up work for him. Of course not. Jesus definitely did enough!
Any learners of Jesus wants to become another Christ is just a funny concept. Too proud of one's own ability, and divinity - To be another Christ! Her/his own work might not be able even to save herself/himself.
Perhaps Paul really wanted to become another Christ, besides calling/appointing himself an Apostle - which seemed not good enough!
Perhaps, Jesus' followers should simply learn from God, the Nature. Just like many secular people do!
"God is (y)our teacher. Nobody else" - Jesus!
Jesus himself purposely did not write any holy books!
They were smart. Better to give each one a part of the religions market. Kind of an oligopoly. Another smart move was to sayb that people should believe without proof. Something like a fundmanager without trackrecord.
But a few years ago Allah started an offensive to take a bigger market share. A rather aggressive campaign, but with members that are ready to die for their boss.
If religions would never have existed, the world would already have been over populated centuries ago. As the killed ones combined with their reproductions would make a huge difference.
It's possible that all of the above marketing acts was designed for one purpose.
Jesus had a vision, to provide good education to everyone for free!
He believed good education comes from good messages.
He also believed good messages can easily reach the whole world effectively when outreaching is organised and implemented well.
(Printing was uncommon then and very expensive.)
Through outreaching with a network of travelling preachers - "Multiplication - Exponential compounding"!
He was confident his messages, good or bad, can one day reach the whole world!
Perhaps the world's first!
Without using Multiplication approach, many pretty good religions (like Zoroastrianismor) or philosophies (like Stoicism) could not even survive well!
Obviously, not everyone had the required intellect and was able to become a philosopher due to its hard work. Justin finally settled down with Jesus' theory, which could be a simplified version of integrating Zoroastrianism and Stoicism.
When Jesus presented them in a Zen approach with many easy-to-understand parables, basically almost everyone in marketplace now can understand his messages.
Without an effective marketing scheme including outreaching, messages and parables, they would never have the chance to learn so much about Stoicism and Zoroastrianism.
Believe it or not, Jesus mentioned to his believers that after taking now water baptism they would need about fire baptism in the future. Without much further elaboration/ exploration.
The fire baptism I guess could well be leading to Zoroastrianism in his mind, awaiting his followers to find it out by themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism . There are 20 times mentioning Fire in the page.
The fire baptism I guess could also imply Stoic Physics as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_physics . There are about 8 times mentioning Fire in this page.
I like to think Christianity has a lot of positives. Love not hate. Construction not destruction etc.
Unlike some others.
" I just guess my religion is a better one, if not the best. I like to think it has a lot of positives. Love, not hate. Construction, not destruction/ etc. Unlike some others. " --- A positive believer with a loving heart and constructive mind
What blood type? How could they verify/investigate the nails were once used for Jesus, but not others? DNA test? Based on any other blood samples from Jesus' close relatives? Who are they, and how to get their samples?
Why was it so hard for so long time that people just could not find any hard evidence such as any relics related directly to Jesus? Such as the iron nails, trees of the cross, Crown Of Thorns (probably with blood sample), etc.
If there were any valid relics, there should have been a proper place for people to keep them already, where is the place similar to the one for Justin's above, who died in year 165?
Jesus is definitely a much more significant figure in Christianity history.
Any recently new findings would be questionable, imo.
Indeed. But those were secular values prior to their use to form the general format which became Christianity.
In my view if those positives can't be applied purely for their own sake without the condition of a religion demanding them under instruction or with threat and fear of retribution as reason to employ them, that can only diminish their worth.
Talking about Religions in general can be equally or much more complicate than this current thread. imo
In simple words, I would think there were many of the historical traditions, family-rules, society-rules, religious-rules, myths, mysteries and phenomenons, generated either by human or by the nature, that could not be rationally explained by the common knowledge and theories of the era.
The concept of Sin was commonly used to punish individuals due to serious lack of scientific and medical knowledge.
e.g. A baby if born blind or disabled was considered due to the sins of its parents. The whole family could be expelled by the community, moving far far away from the community.
With zero support from the community members (or even relatives), that would make the family's living even much harder.
In a sense, the community simply expect the whole needy family would completely vanish/die.
A figure like Jesus understood what to do through providing rational education/knowledge to everyone for free, in order to correct the misconceptions and mistakes people made according to this kind of bad traditions.
Jesus himself did not invent a religion of his theory, at all. He simply told every person, whether he healed or not, just "Go home!". He did not say, "Come to my church! My name is Jesus."
Since scientists were marching yesterday, let's throw in a little knowledge (gnosis) into this thread:
For anyone who comes with Josephus or anybody near contemporary of Jesus, I would like to discuss the other writings from the same time:
Now we can bet serious money that any nearly contemporary, but contradictory (to dogma) writings didn't make it through the censoring process of 20 centuries and today we simply don't even have any idea what was left out. Except when we find old writings in caves or in dry sand. My fav is this:
"The Gospel of Peter is one of the non-canonical gospels rejected as apocryphal by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon. It was the first of the non-canonical gospels to be rediscovered, preserved in the dry sands of Egypt.
....this gospel denies the crucifixion of Jesus which contradicts the belief of mainstream Christianity but has similarities with Docetism."
A fairly comprehensive timeline:
The 4 Gospel books without using/referencing the term "Christian(s)", in the canonical Bible, were written possibly even later than some other books.
I had a cousin named Jesus. I'm fairly sure he lived and died - too young for that matter.
Hope that helps
The highly likely existence of Jesus students, and the obvious variations (even contradictions) between various Gospels, especially from the existence of the Gospel of Mary, could be indirectly (but closely related) an valid evidence of the existence of Jesus.
Below is based on the author Esther A. de Boer of http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-gospel-of-mary-9780826480019/ :
Trying to recover his undistorted teaching herself, Mary wrote her book (Gospel of Mary) only because she realised Peter and Paul were alternating Jesus' teachings to suit their own goals.
According to the writer of apocrypha book The Gospel of Mary, Jesus, Mary only called him the Saviour, warmed she not to give rules or laws, lest one become imprisoned by them.
Looks like the same good reason for why Jesus didn't write any books!
Perhaps a typical reason that some great Philosophers/Buddhas did not write any books at all!
You're personal view of the situation is unclear to me. And why do you sign off LOL (Laughing Out Loud)?
So i will just state, positively, what the situation actually is/was.
The principle i advocate says that what was true for Jesus is true for all mankind, and visa versa, what is not true for Jesus is not true for mankind.
I'm not sure this principle has been so clearly laid out in any early doctrines beyond some implications, such as Paul's poetry suggesting; If he died, we died. If he lived, we live.
Also poetic, the meme "he died for us", really means he represented mankind in every way. That meaning was lost when theology evolved to make him special.
So for a long time now, Christianity has expressed cognitive dissonance as it cannot make up it's mind how to reconcile the specialness of Jesus, with the sameness of Jesus.
In it's worst expression, Jesus is made so special as to be the only one good enough to be accepted as a bloody sacrifice unto death, for the salvation of mankind.
I am emphasizing the sameness. Those who depend on the special status of Jesus to save them will vehemently disagree with me.
On the contrary, i say that it is the sameness that saves.
More specifically, specialness saves those interested in being special, and sameness saves that which has the humility to recognize a fundamental equality about the phenomenon of Christ.
Since the prime motivation of all mankind is to be special, those humans who want to preserve the essential human nature see "salvation" as something that will preserve that essential nature. A special savior preserves that status quo.
The prime motivation of Jesus, however, was to be the same as the Most High, as in, "one" with...as a matter of fact. As such, Jesus would not be different than the Most High, and so, not special.
Extending this to the historicity of Jesus, i simply say, Jesus was as historical as any other human being.
But what is a human being?
And what is history?
A mind predisposed to special status won't ask these last two questions because it will never doubt the pre-eminence of mankind and it's history.
By pre-eminent, i mean, man holds his own reality higher than the reality of Christ.
For this reason, the mainstream will always reject something it has called "Docetism", or the idea that Jesus was somehow an appearance, and not as real as other human beings.
Again, any human stuck on the stupidity of special status won't be able to see the implication. If it's true that Jesus is the same as all mankind, then, if he was an appearance, so too is all mankind an apparition.
I'm not aware of any early literature that made that connection. Perhaps it was implied in some original Docetic liturature/teaching, but was lost.
I would assure you, Jesus was an appearance. So, if stu want's to come along and say he never existed, i might be inclined to agree, so long as stu will also admit that mankind does not, did not, and never will exist.
Otherwise, stu makes the same mistake as Christians, who make Jesus special to save their own skin.
imo, theology is just a man-made theory, based on the contents (of which the conical status was defined also by some special men) of the holy books within one of the faith systems.
Anyway, according to the above quotes from Mary, Jesus was the one to clarify that there is no such thing as original universal sin for all men.
Jesus actually saved the "Man" universally through this scientific/ rational/ practical way! Rather than any theological/biblical ones.
His death therefore did not have any divine significance to save others. As the mainstream theology usually says, mainly according to Paul's interpretations. Who was the only theologian/scholar among the early believers.
Virtues, yes. Vices, yes. But not Sins, especially Not original sin due to Adam/Eve and the Apple.
Wrongdoing, yes. Right-doing, yes. But nobody should be arrested or punished, physically/ psychologically/ theologically/ theoretically/ whatsoever, due to her/his original sin created by Adam/Eve onto her/him.
To be saved if going to church. Otherwise, eternal death to be burned by fire in hell!
The 1st mention of sin is about universal/original sin.
The 2nd mention of sin/adultery is about "Deviation" from nature - natural laws/ orders and any other natural things. Then, people get sickness, physically/ mentally/ psychologically/ etc. Sickness simply needs physicians/ professionals.
A blind or born-disabled baby is not because of its parents' sins.
A thunder causing fire destroying our house, farming or property is not because of our sins.
A person should live in a happy life. Rather than constantly in a status of fear, worrying the trouble of sins. Or daily looking for any holy ways of cleansing sins - such as talking to a priest about her/his sins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism God = the Nature
I don't think you made it clear enough what sin is, so we can determine what it isn't.
Original sin? What is that?
There's theology, and there's flavored theology, such as "Christian", "Jewish", and Mohammedan theology, which is the theology of one man, copied by millions, to the extent they can even understand the one man's theology.
You have theology too, especially if you are using theologically flavored sources to make points.
I don't think you've yet explained a rational way to dismiss sin, whatever it happens to be...or not be.
For different reasons, we both agree that the death of Jesus did not contain anything specific that saves anything else from death.
To me, the reason is because of the sameness principle i already mentioned. If the same, then anyone else who wishes to obtain the salvation Jesus obtained, for whatever reasons, must obtain that salvation the same way he obtained it.
Hence, "follow me", and, "he who lays down his life for my sake will save it.".
I assert that Jesus died for Christ's sake, and was saved only to the extent he identified himself with Christ.
Stated another way, Jesus made a choice to identify with what dies [man], or what lives [Christ].
Choosing against human identification is a kind of "death" that he encouraged, for the sake of Christ.
This means that salvation is for Christ, not for people.
Depending on what motivates people, they will not be able or willing to see this, or accept this as the rational solution.
People are motivated, at their very core, to be special. This is important to understand because it determines what flavor of theology will flow from various sayings.
People are interested in saving some kind of special status, and so, conflate theology toward that purpose, twisting anything to support the core intention.
There are many ways to support the status quo, which is special status, which is what humanity, and the world he seems to live in, is all about.
Here, Christians, Jews, Mohammedans and atheists join forces, to save the essence of what makes humanity human.
Your objective above is noble. You should write more about that, and often. TIA
My view on sin requires more backstory to understand.
My idea of original sin is very different from the popular flavored theological offerings.
When was the word first used?
In the Jewish folklore book called "Genesis"?
Anyways, it seems certain it was an established concept long floating around in the Jewish theological pool by the time Jesus arrived on the scene.
As commonly understood, it is something specific, within an otherwise "good" world, that the creator of the good world finds to be wrong, destructive, bad, or evil...to the point it needs to be noted in a database and punished sooner or later, some how, some way.
But sin is deceptive, and if that's how it is commonly understood, then the deception, and therefore the sin, remains.
Perhaps the Jesus of the Mary gospel was trying to explain this. But i don't think the author of that gospel understood the actual situation, what he was trying to convey.
Yes, specific conditions like adultery are called sin.
But to me, everything people do, including dying, is sin.
Rationally, there is a problem if everything a man does is a sin, but then someone makes up a list of specific sins, and leaves everything else a man is and does alone, as good or natural.
Not just the things that man does, but more importantly, what man is.
Man is a sin.
And there is only one kind of rationality that can remove that.
That kind of sin can only be removed by removing mankind.
Mankind can only be removed by an honest recognition of what man actually is:
a deceptive apparition.
Things that don't exist cannot be imputed with sin.
But if man exists, every thing he is and does, is sin.
The arbitrary making of lists of sins actually supports the existence of man.
That is basically what Jesus was arguing against, when he talked about how sins are named and listed.
Looks like you do have an interesting theory/theology about Sin!
So, do you love Man/Sin? Or hate? LOL
So long, my friend!
So here is a list of sins that stu won't like, but also Christians, Jews and Mohammedans won't like it either:
Sex (married or not married, same gender or different gender)
This list describes man's existence, and even man's end of existence (death).
This implies that the "sin", if there is one, is the responsibility of "man's maker".
Yes, that's what i am saying.
I'm saying man's maker is the chief sinner, and man is simply made after the image of it's maker, so-to-speak.
With this much backstory, it might be possible to to understand what is really the "original sin".
The original sin goes back before man was even conceived as a concept.
The conception of man, as a concept, was "conceived in sin", meaning, everything about the concept was sinful.
Birth was sinful.
Growth (change) was sinful.
Breathing was sinful.
Sex was sinful.
Eating was sinful.
Dying was sinful.
I hope people are understanding the scope of sin now.
Narrower scopes all support the existence of man, which continues to support the original sin.
Alas, we come now to the actual definition of sin, which are notions about reality that are not true. When taken seriously, such notions are manifest in the imagination of "mind" that is driven insane by it's notions.
Stated another way, man and man's world is manifest out of the imagination of a mind gone mad, as it ignores reality, and reinterprets reality according to it's own notions.
But not even that is the original sin.
The original sin traces all the way back to Christ.
What do i mean by that?
The original sin traces all the way back to reality, and from reality, wanders out into the unknown darkness of unreality; the domain of the imagination.
It is in this domain, the domain of imagination, that man is conceived and "born".
Indeed, man is made as an image (appearance) within imagination.
As such, it is not man that is doing the sinning.
The sinner is the thing that imagines man to be...to exist.
Whatever that sinner is, it is not sane, which is the real meaning of "unclean".
Something breaks away from reality with the idea that it will create it's own reality.
That thing starts with imagination, and proceeds to call it's manifestations (appearances) "reality".
By calling it's appearances "reality", that thing, that thinking principle, loses it's sanity. This is the real meaning of "lost".
Actually, man is an extension of the thing that breaks away from reality, and wanders off into the outer darkness of the unknown.
By extension, i mean the sinning thing transforms itself into all manner of creeping things, whether two-legged, eight-legged, two-winged, or four-winged.
Long story short, the "sinner" becomes, by way of transformation, all that man is, all that man does, all that man sees, and all that man thinks. In fact, the sinner is man's entire world, hiding in plain daylight.
The only way for this sinner to be forgiven, is for it not to exist.
By emphasizing short lists of "sins", the list-makers effectively emphasize the basic reality of man's platform. Short lists effectively use reverse psychology to affirm man's existence.
That is why all three Abrahamic religions affirm man. Arguably, that's all they do, intending to save man from non-existence.
The concept of glorified bodies, to be resurrected later, is simple more of the same old, same old preservation of the essence of what mankind is.
Mankind is all about special status, and a glorified body simply affirms that status.
So as i've said, sin traces back to Christ, and either Christ is a sinner, or Christ is not a sinner.
The only way for Christ to not be a sinner is for the realm of imagination to not exist.
Alas, we are getting closer to the "original sin".
Technically, all sin is a deception about reality, attached to reality, and called "reality".
Since Christ is reality, all sin is about Christ.
As such, all sin mocks Christ, twists Christ, wrecks Christ, and ultimately destroys Christ...if it could.
If Christ, the real, accepts sin as real, then Christ is transformed into the sin.
While the sin transforms reality into something it isn't, it (reality) is destroyed by the imagination.
What lives dies, if sin is the "truth".
All Jesus ever did was to discern the difference between real and unreal, and make a choice.
Anybody who wishes to be "saved" from the domain of imagination must make the same choice.
So no, Jesus did not die for anybody.
Instead, he taught lessons for anybody to understand.
If anyone can understand the lesson and make the choice, that one is saved.
But again, one must choose between what to save.
Will you save the real, or will you save the unreal?
If you save the real, you save Christ, and in saving Christ, you save your SELF.
Forgiveness is about overlooking sin.
The only way to overlook the sin of man is to overlook man.
The only way to overlook man is to look beyond man.
So it's not a matter of love or hate.
It's a matter of recognizing a reality beyond the unreal appearance of man.
As we get better at this process, the problems of man, like pain, affect us less and less.
If you got really good at this, you could hang nailed to a cross and not feel any of the problems of pain.
The world ends when it is no longer seen, not even as an appearance.
That's when reality stands on it's own, as it's own, as its SELF.
One must love this SELF to see it.
In seeing this SELF, one will be it.
That's all Jesus ever did. He forgave the world it's sins.
In this way, the "truth takes away the sins of the world".
By recognizing the world as sin, and recognizing sin as unreal, the truth washes away the whole world, like a flood, leaving Christ, alone, standing tall...sinless.
Perhaps a conclusion would be, more students learning Jesus' theory is a proof of Jesus' evidence historically.
And his students nowadays are all the secular soles including some attending churches who need to graduate sooner or later, rather than keeping themselves in a church learning Jesus' theory their whole life inside church without graduation, ever.
Jesus was the first offering education to female students, Mary was one among them. Very seldom by any other philosophers, or theologians of any traditions in faith.
However, a formal system for educating female students was only started by Christian churches until very late era. Probably after year 1,500, off-head guess. By Methodists, perhaps.
With more graduates from churches, the gross number of traditional Christians would be naturally diminishing. That should be considered a success, not a fail.
We should expect this same result would be matured in other different faiths. Rather than worrying the comparison of nominal number of active worship-place-goers. Because, many of Jesus' believers are simply secular persons today, as graduates of Jesus' theory/teachings.
Whether these graduates calling themselves Christians or anything (including atheists), is not important at all. No significance.
Probably the best way for other faiths to learn is this same process that many graduates of Jesus theory experienced. And the graduates of Jesus' theory should help believers of other faiths to go through the same learning process, sooner or later.
Graduation could well be part of Jesus' theory about fire baptism process. Rationality = Fire. God = the Nature.
That, the graduation process, could be the real modernisation and secularisation of any faith systems in this Internet era.
A church's success should measure how many graduates from the church rather how many are being kept inside a church. And their graduates should be welcome to visit the church anytime where they studied/graduated before.
We should overcome our fear against the growth of some other faiths by helping and accelerating their growth/graduating process, like that we experienced before. Rather than using any other alternative mass-destroying methods/instruments.
That could be one of the most effective approaches for a world-wide peace-building process. Also to overcome any future growth of extremists/ fundamentalists in any faiths, including our own.
Thanks for the comment,LL; Hebrews 11 ;1 says '' faith is the title deed.....'' Ever bought any real estate?? Faith is the title deed; some states name them ''deeds of trust''. Ever been in a synagog or church, ever read the Bible , or did a Bible study?? Ever had any or many answered prayers?? Ever met a Christian?? Ever known 1983 is the year of the Bible US Pres Reagan declared, are you aware of that??
Sin. Created in the Bible so Christianity could push the cure. Convince folks they have something they don't, then sell 'em a remedy.
Oldest trick (and it's) in the book.
so what is your point. You doubt the entire record of Josephus?
I can understand saying you don't trust record if it is not the original and not tested by a court of law... But.. then you would also be arguing Obama must show the original birth certificate before you accept the fact he was born in HI. (see how you own bullshit catches up with you.)
my view is the following.
I agree the historical record we have is not perfect and it therefore does not conclusively prove Jesus existed.
But, since there is a record of him in our accepted history you can't credibly argue against the fact Jesus is a historical person.
This is reasonable. I'm not going to argue with it. Who is in possession of the Josephus documents? Not the Vatican, I would hope. You either put the relevant section up here once, or was it a link? never mind I googled and found it.
I like to think that everyone on earth is misguided, because they think that any of the past means anything for their future.
A study of commodity futures proves that studying the past is only of so much help for the future.
So while studying the thousands of years of religious history, the past performance of those religions will not guarantee future results.
This is especially true if you subscribe to the idea that there is no afterlife, no nothing after death. There is no pre-birth, and no after-death. That is it.
When we die, that is all. We're done. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Think about it. What was there before we were born? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Why has nobody ever spoken about pre-birth experiences? It is all just after-death experiences. Humans can be dumb and not logical.
If you really really think you are going to have an afterlife, then you better try and wrangle your head around the idea of having a pre-life. If in your head a pre-life is not possible, then an afterlife cannot be possible as well. So you are back to the root of the problem. There is no pre or post. There is only the now.
How about Overnight?
That's true, basically.
However, many souls would like to do a little bit more in order to improve the happiness of life for their next generations, including concurrently to reduce any potential unhappiness/ suffering.
I think both philosophy and religion were created mainly for (re)solving serious life-happiness/ unhappiness issues.
Perhaps, for any (truly blessed) person who has seldom/never encountered any serious happiness/ unhappiness problems, all the concepts/ terms usually used in religion/philosophy would most likely have minimum meaning.
was there a "before" or "outside" the big bang. Are there other universes? other dimensions?
Higher states of consciousness. Existence outside of our timeline? Can a human life just begin for the first time? A Creator? Science can't rule out any of these things... so I don't you are I can know any of these either. Its takes faith to say there is Creator or there is no Creator or an afterlife or no afterlife.
That someone sincerely believes in something (divine or not) now, doesn't surely mean someone's future (overnight, afterlife, etc.) is under her/his control!
What Would a Stoic Do?
If you need faith to say there is a God and faith to say there is an after life, then there must be an absence of faith to say differently.
If you need faith to say both there is and there isn't something, then faith is a complete dead end.
That does a massive injustice to faith.
Blind faith is a better rationalization for the absurd ideas of God and afterlife than the insane justifications they otherwise invite.
you have been trying that canard on and off for about a decade.
Where there is a very complex creation... there is a very reasonable chance there was a creator.
I have proven to you many times out of the mouths of some of the most respected scientists in the world that a Creator is one of the possibilities to explain our very unnatural, very fine tuned universe.
The explanation that most scientists resort to is faith in an an unproven unseen multiverse in which everything is possible. (in a sense the multiverse is the equivalent of a Creator.)
If a scientist or anyone else is doing faith, they ain't doing science.
"There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references - nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death - even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era - there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time - the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
One questionable entry in Josephus following a couple of others already confirmed and generally accepted to be fraudulent, does nothing to help establish Jesus as anything else than an elaborate myth, albeit a persistent one.
It shouldn't matter. Blind faith can carry belief into suspending reality. But that is not what truth is.
The insult to human integrity comes at the point where people insist, teach, instruct that Jesus was actually an historical figure and events surrounding the character's story are actually true. That's where it gets very wrong and fundamentally dishonest.
I hope he was not that Jesus busted by SEC. LOL Sec of ed Bill Bennet said thank God for the SEC.Jesus is a popular name for boys in Mexico. Jesus Christ, king of kings, was born in Israel+lives in the praises of Israel ,every Bible believing church + synagog,+ every Christian h Amplified Bible[ Thanks;LHK
Any evidence found may not prove the true existence of fact. As the evidence could have been made up.
No evidence found may not disprove the true existence of fact. As any evidence could have been destroyed.
The wellbeing (More-happiness & Less-unhappiness) they want is important.
The term they use really doesn't matter.
God has made the world.
The wellbeing of the world is important.
It really doesn't matter so much whether the making is called creation/evolution, nor the maker God/Universe/Nature.
Just 2 cents!
first of all. you completely misrepresent Josephus.
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation. Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable. However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.
2. I read in the entire world this is only a small bookshelf of documents from that era so the argument that Jesus should have been mentioned makes little sense.
3. Finally, your argument is illogical. You don't have to believe what scholars say. But if the definition of historical is left to scholars... and the scholars say Jesus is a historical figure he is. Is like figures skating ... you can argue with the judges but you know they determine who gets the gold medal.
So the only insult to one's integrity is to the integrity of those who attempt deny Jesus is a historical figure.
Modern history is all twisted to fuck, propaganda has been around ever since people started wiping their butts and you ask about Jesus that lived over 2000 years ago?
It's all about marketing, promotion and publicity.
Nobody would argue much about Santa's birth certificate and registration, as long as many people just feel happy!
Why would someone like going to destroy the fun and joy of others, after all! Sometimes, including herself/himself! LOL
That's a rather strong way of putting it but yeah ok, the twisted to fuck Jesus lived propaganda it is.
That's one inaccurate quotation. See, you just twisted what I said few days ago, how would history preserve my comment if it was made 2k years ago?
To get back to sin. Ask yourself is murder sinful ?
I and most others would say yes.
But imagine yourself in the 1930s. Would it have been sinful to murder Adolph Hitler and save the planet from World War 11 ? Think of the millions who need not have been killed.
You might say he should have been jailed for his foul beliefs. He was, but a mere jail couldn't hold him.
So fast forward to the present. Should Kim of North Korea who appears to be trying to start WW3 be assassinated ?
My idea is not matter your decision is, just don't tell him! Especially by yourself!
1. Just 2 cents. If a person could peacefully stimulate/cause so many martyr followers after her/his death, the rulers would possibly take all possible actions to prove her/his non-existence by eliminating all verifiable hard evidences.
Sending not only many strong soldiers to guard/watch her/his tomb overnight, but also place a heavy-duty over-sized stone to block the tomb, in order to prevent stealing her/his body from inside. Most likely, that was done due to a public statement saying the body inside will rise again in 3 days after death.
Historians of the era most likely were loyal/royal employees.
2. Another 2 cents. If we called the early followers of Jesus Jesus-ians, the rulers of the era later after out-of-control growth in size would most likely try to down size them by changing/converting them into Christians, to follow Paul's theology. According to a set of canonical holy books chosen and touched up by the rulers' employees, naturally.
A Cosmic God (God=Nature=Universe=Reason), which is naturally in-built into everybody's heart and mind consciously and unconsciously, was the most popular conception/conviction during the era, as promoted by Stoics. Paul's Christianity theology used his Religious God theory to hijack the term God ever since.
Making the term God an unbelievable conception, hence many people don't really like the term God anymore.
Sad and also unfair to (Cosmic) God lovers! God is not a term exclusive to religious believers of various faiths, at all!
Nowadays truly a mess - Worst being to do any sinister things in the name of (a religious) God! What a joke! LOL
In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.
What you believe to be true only becomes stronger over time. There is no need for historical evidence of " " ...he is true to those that believe.
The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. The group reversed Wheeler's original experiment, and used helium atoms scattered by light.
imo, any traders wanting to become good ones should understand the tricks well.
It's an amazing phenomenon but not sure it should be quite so surprising as it's often made out to be. To observe a beam of electrons it requires light or a sensor which will change or interfere with an electrons' environment. So of course the observation itself might be expected to mess with their behavior.
Like trading. As soon as you interfere with the market by placing a trade, it often does the unexpected.
hmm perhaps not surprisingly, "What you believe to be true only becomes stronger over time." and "There is no need for historical evidence" and "Galileo Was a Liar"...... are also slogans of The Flat Earth Society.
Well if you had made that 2k years ago, history would preserve it as the only evidence to say 'Jesus lived' within at least 100 years after his supposed death .
However, you made it in the here and now and as there is no real evidence, no historicity whatsoever to the claim 'Jesus lived', your comment is ironically no better than the twisted propaganda it speaks of.
Hope that helps.
They have found a carved stone tablet for his sepulchre with his name on it. Could be a fake though.
Who cares? They found God! And she's alive in Houston, TX!
In Ireland one can be sued for blasphemy !! Currently Stephan Fry is being interviewed by the police there over his comments.
I sometimes think some are turning the clock into reverse time.
The rights and privileges hard won over the years are being undermined. The Trump age of the super rich are behaving like the " Robber Barons " of the 19th century. Even there is the rise of 19th century protectionism and nationalism around the world.
Both are operating from a position of fear of losing control. They are segregating themselves, while trying to kill threats. This includes plans to exterminate the population.
They are guilty of slavery, mass murder, and mass torture. They don't want to go to prison or lose control/power, and are willing to kill the human species.
%% I see your points /quotes OTrader.
Actually while Jesus Christ ,[ the Word, aka king of kings , aka LORD]did not put his name on the cover of the Bible, he inspired it.
And sort of like i just quoted you[[not saying you are God LOL]; Jesus Christ quoted plenty of old testament verses.Most versions note it in new testatment where Jesus, King of kings ,quotes old testament sometimes in footnotes.............................................................................................................................
Obviously you're a man of big Faith!
I dont know about that, thanks O Trader. I read about 31/+ chapters of Proverbs per 31 days.......; not a prediction. LOL
Faith is the title deed- Hebrews 11;1 a ,Amplified Bible
I would have agree with Hitchens that the fraud is not whole cloth, but based on some character. But while Hitchens can only imagine a deluded character, I can imagine Jesus was a successful Eastern practitioner of the advaita line of teaching/reasoning. Having returned to his native land after much traveling absence, he proposed to use the current Jewish base of literature, and more, to lead them to another way of thinking. Christianity, as it was started by mostly Jews, forces a fraud upon all that Jesus said and did, in order to make him the messiah. And if messiah, what purpose the crucifixion? So, force a comparison to the passover story to Jesus' demonstration. And it all goes down hill from there.
"Give no thought for the morrow".
Right, Hitchens, not good advice for anyone except those moving very close to what Jesus knew, experienced, and taught.
Modern examples of this are anyone going into "samsara", in meditation, and includes Ramana Maharshi.
A middle road approach was demonstrated by Nisargardatta Maharaj.
Generally speaking, planning for the future does not mix well with what these gurus say is available...NOW.
But Hitchens, remember, depending on the scale of the fraud, we cant trust, whole cloth, anything they say Jesus said, including this. Context matters too.
Actually,Good 1 the comparison of Christ with the passover lamb- books could be written about that Bible based comparison.+ have.Bible teaches plans -Proverbs is full of plans; best to read multiple translations... thought for morrow
As far as the crucifixion, good question .Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures , was buried, rose again the 3rd day, according to the scriptures. [1st Cor 15, Bible]
Thanks; almost all or all the Bible was written by Jews, inspired by God.
Likewise, the interpretation of everything Jesus said or did is spun according to Jews. Passover lamb is their interpretation for a simpler lesson.
Paul used the term "Juadaizer" purjoritively. With good reason if you first understand that what Jesus taught, and what the Jews believed were incompatible. That same incompatibility extends to this day, within Judeo-Christianity, which distances itself not only from Eastern Orthodox, but all things Eastern, including, and perhaps especially, Jesus' own brand of Advaita. In using the term, Paul, the former Pharisee, does not absolve himself from the fact he was the greatest Juadaizer them all...stressing Jewish scripture beyond its limits, to fit the round Jesus into the square hole in his heart.
"Have no thought for the morrow".
Whether he said it, we don't know. The context matters. It could mean don't be such busy bodies that you neglect eternal salvation. It could mean do only what is absolutely necessary to maintain your body or your family.
But speaking from experience, if you are called, this is how you answer. It is the more natural thing to do when something about your human existence dies. Do the dying care about tomorrow? I speak from experience, things that were very important to you could suddenly seem trivial.
If you are called, and if you let yourself be carried away completely by this inclination, who knows what would happen, and it can be scary. I responded cleverly, acting as if I was following that call, just enough to stop the out of control feeling, but convince myself I was answering the call. I became a Judeo-Christian, and the extremely compelling part of the call subsided.
Generally speaking, if you are called, you answer. You WILL do something, even if it means sitting down and do absolutely nothing as the rats search your pockets for crumbs.
Yes, some people have done this, including Ramana Maharshi, at the age of 17. The only reason he ended up with an ashram is because others took it upon themselves to preserve his person and his teachings for themselves and for posterity.
So the simplest lesson, in my view, is Jesus was demonstrating to his core followers, the effects of following his teachings.
One effect is no fear.
Another effect is no pain.
The no pain lesson was lost on the passover type of interpreters, who felt that the son was being sacrificed/punished for the sons/sins of others. Punishment involves pain, and so, many Judeo-Christians believe a possible pain component is/was necessary...even though they could not tell you how important that component would be within their rather Jewish interpretation.
So there are assumptions about the crucifixion that really rather blaspheme the lesson taught. The idea of no pain is critical to an understanding of Christ, and only ignored by gluttons for punishment.
If Jesus was NOT being punished, for himself or anyone else, Judeo-Christianity starts to fall apart.
So why do we call it the Bible?
The Old Testament is based on the Jewish Torah.
Christianity is based on the New Testament/Jesus and his Disciples.
So, why do we call it the Bible?
True, DallasCF; but i call it Dallas Ft -Worth. Would that bother me most call it Dallas or Ft Worth ???,???? Fine with me. Its also called the Holy Bible ; bible means book. My Christian banker dad had a hunters Bible only 3 books. A lady asked are Christians in in the book of Joshua[6th book ]or Judges [7th book] I waited prayerfully ,24 hours like an accurate turtle. Sure are ;Hebrews 11 noted Joshua, Gideon[[7th book] They call them repenters in Romania, much more than Christians.................................................................................................Thanks.
One reason the Jews hated the Samaritans was not just really race alone;
Samaritains only believed 5 book of OT, much more in Old Testament than 5.Thanks
Sometimes humans just want to find the weakest and to hate them, instead of to protect them. Sad!
Jesus did say the right thing about Samaritans, imo!
Looks like you have a pretty intelligent question. But I can only provide a fairly unintelligent answer below.
When I read a Bible of Birds, I expect I can learn a lot of stuff about birds on our beautiful earth.
When I read a Bible of Rivers, I expect I can learn a lot of stuff about rivers in this amazing world.
When I read a Bible of Pizzas, I expect I can learn a lot of stuff about pizzas around the wonderful globe.
This is all true. When someone defines something as a bible.....it is usually considered an all encompassing authority to a specific subject.
I think that the use of bible in those examples derives from the Holy Bible as an authority on morality and Christianity.
I just wonder where it originated from, when it was called a Bible and what it was called when they assembled the first books together.
Sometimes I ask too many questions.....
In this day and age I suggest you forget JC and the New Testament. The human race is not ready for it yet.
Mostly or all written by Jews, inspired by the God of Israel. Dr Luke [gospel of Luke ]was most likely non Jewish , but cant prove it .....................................................................
its funny if I stay away from this thread long enough you find a new way to mis state history.
there is one questionable quote regarding Jesus in Josephus and one that virtually every real scholar accepts.
how many times do I have to correct you on this mis statement of history of yours.
there are now many partial manuscripts which also
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.
Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.
Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.
The Modern scholarship you refer to consisting mainly of Christian apologists, largely acknowledged another universally agreed fake Josephus reference to the highest level of authenticity, until they stopped doing it due to the evidence supplied by real Modern scholars. The crap put out there by religious scholars tends to diminish proportionately to its absurdity over time.
Your dependence on Josephus is tantamount to finding 2 forged twenty dollar bills next to each other, eventually having to admit one is fake, while claiming the other genuine, even though it carries all the hallmarks of the faked bill.
There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates... not so much as a single solitary reference to Jesus in any non religious source of any kind.
In all the vast array of ancient writings, Jesus’s name isn't even so much as mentioned.
It would have to be to make bible Jesus historical.
Jesus fake news. So sad
you are misrepresenting things again. Wikepedia wrote that not me.
And if you do the research as I have presented to you before it is accurate.
there are few if any serious scholars who question the legitimacy of both entries in Josephus.
How about a citation to all these real scholars who claim the both entries in Josephus are fake.
as far as records...
all the records from 2000 years ago would fit on a small bookshelf.
but.. in the interest of scholarship.
how many birth records and trial transcripts do you have from 2000 years ago.
I would really like to know more about your argument.
there are few records that are 2000 years old.
Josephus is considered one of the great historical records of the time
Jesus was mentioned in it and so were christians.
One passage is disputed one is not.
i should clarify... I meant some scholars do question one entry but not both. One entry is solid.
Scholars do not question one entry but generally agree it has been interpolated . A less polite term for that is forged.
But you are missing the point. Serious scholars didn't doubt the faked passage in Josephus until they were eventually obliged by other serious scholars to accept they could not consider the whole of Josephus was authentic.
Serious scholars still dispute both entries in Josephus. They have done for centuries.
Josephus is indeed considered one of the great historical records of the time yet the only place where it is considered to have been forged, is where the words Christ/Jesus have been entered.
If you think all the records from 2000 years ago would fit on a small bookshelf then I suggest you tell that to the numerous great libraries accross the land where tens of thousands of volumes and countless documents spanning accross the whole of the Bible Jesus era, bear testament to the fact that by the process of historical methodology, none, not one fragment, confirms in historical terms that Bible Jesus ever actually existed.
Yet the contemporaries Mark Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius.....(need I go on) .... extistences can be.
But as ever you are going round in circles with this.
Even if Josephus was authentic in all it's passages which it isn't, it would not be enough.
The historicity of a figure cannot be confirmed without at least some separate authorititive and independant evidence to substatiate it. As far as the Josephus Testimonium Flavianum's reference to Christ/Jesus goes, there is none whatsoever.
Futhermore it was written in a period 100 years after the supposed Jesus event. So in any case whether it is considered the passages are authentic or not, without some other uncontroversial evidence in support, it is only hearsay.
Unlike the rest of Josephus where his writing, if not directly validated, does at least hold some contextual accord with other evidence, there is nothing at all to underpin the dissputed Testimonium passages.
By any objective view, what Josephus can only be supposed to have said about Christ/Jesus - is not mentioned, referred to, or even inferred in any other ancient confirmed historically accurate record. There is no support for Bible Jesus in any non religious form anywhere, which makes all the mention of Jesus in Josephus dubious especially as one passage had been later altered by others.
That is a devistatingly remarkable fact which has to be comprehensively and ignominiously ignored when assuming fictional characters like Bible Jesus actually existed.
If Bible Jesus's existence is simply a matter of faith then I have no particular beef. In those terms it should just be about the message, generally understood as one of goodness and the Golden Rule, which incidentally never did require a religious mythical archetype to understand.
But to insist Bible Jesus existed requires historicity - in light of that fact and as there happens to be none whatsoever, it seems to me either fundamentally dishonest or willfully ignorant to claim otherwise.
Saint Nicholas of Myra was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra (now Demre) in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Empire, now in Turkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor, in particular presenting the three impoverished daughters of a pious Christian with dowries so that they would not have to become prostitutes. He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity. In continental Europe (more precisely the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Germany) he is usually portrayed as a bearded bishop in canonical robes.
The remains of Saint Nicholas are in Italy. In 1087, the Italian city of Bari mounted an expedition to locate the tomb of the Saint. The reliquary of St. Nicholas was conquered by Italian sailors and his relics were taken to Bari where they are kept to this day. A basilica was constructed the same year to store the loot and the area became a pilgrimage site for the devout. Sailors from Bari collected just half of Nicholas' skeleton, leaving all the minor fragments in the grave. These were collected by Venetian sailors during the First Crusade and taken to Venice, where a church to St. Nicholas, the patron of sailors, was built on the San Nicolò al Lido. This tradition was confirmed in two important scientific investigations of the relics in Bari and Venice, which revealed that the relics in the two Italian cities belong to the same skeleton. Saint Nicholas was later claimed as a patron saint of many diverse groups, from archers, sailors, and children to pawnbrokers. He is also the patron saint of both Amsterdam and Moscow.
Not as productive as connecting to the living christ within (or any other master).
This knowing is transformative, all quoted novelty not so much.
1. Nearly all modern scholars of antiquity, which is the majority viewpoint, agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[nb 9]
2. On the same page we see Josephus discussed...
Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other; for example, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that, while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1, and only a small number of scholars dispute it. There are three references to the name 'Jesus' in Book 20, Chapter 9: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah'); "Jesus, son of Damneus", a Jewish High Priest (both in Paragraph 1); and "Jesus, son of Gamaliel", another Jewish High Priest (in Paragraph 4).
The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44., referred both to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate. The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe. The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds.
3. regarding 2000 year old records... please let me know the thousand of them you know about... I am not talking about copies of manuscripts... I am talking about unique manuscripts. If you want to talk about copies... lets remember many of the letters in the bible were written within one generation... some would say that some were written by Jesus's disciples themselves.
here is a list of new testament papyri... which go back to ad 150... and apparently there are some papyri which may go back to the first century.
4. your argument about josephus make no sense. Josephus is consider part of the historical record. If you are in there you are historical. You once again are making up arguments about what makes something historical.
In the case Jesus... you have letters that were written about him and his disciples at the time... Many of which made it into the bible but some did not. You have fragments of these letters going back to the first century... and maybe earlier.
On top of that you have Jesus mentioned in historical records such as Josephus and Tacitus and others.
Shocking news: Biblical scholars are mostly Christians
Islamic scholars are Non-Christian sources as well as Jewish scholars are, and they both rely on religious / biblical accounts only as source for Jesus. Because there is literally no other source to rely on.
Tacitus is less useful than Josephus who is no real use except to apologists.
What is your point? If there are no records of the time as you assert, then there is de facto no record of a Jesus, therefore he cannot be confirmed as actually existing in history, and you make the point for me.
Funny though how for instance so many Roman Emperors of and around the time do fit with basic standards confirming historicity. However, not one bit of Jesus does.
All the parts of Josephus which are considered to be the historical record are the parts that fit the context of the time, reflect and accord with other similarly verified material, and follow a logical narrative with other separate sound and independently based sources.
That means all parts of Josephus are considered historical without much dispute - except the tiny scrap which mentions Christ and Jesus - indisputably found to have been forged in part, still leaving a few sentences in serious dispute, despite what the mostly Christian Biblical scholars write in Wikipedia.
No letters were written about Jesus at the time. There are no letters about Jesus that aren't simply religious writings made around 100 and more years later.
As a standard for historicity, what you are arguing would mean in 2,000 years, the Philosopher's Stone is going to be the historical record that gives Harry Potter the quality of having existed as a real person in history.
As I have said, Josephus and the rest aren't enough evidence for Jesus even if the few lines hadn't been faked. There simply is nothing written there about Jesus that is supported in any independent way at all, in the way every historical event considered to be factual is.
When it comes to deities, all there can be and actually has been throughout the whole of history, is blind faith. At best naive, but basically dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Pearls like this
If Jesus was merely a fictional figure, why would the Jews still accept basically-all-the-time that he was/is only a prophet, without even any categorically refuting his historical existence - knowing that the whole race of Jews so many of them during the era were always observing and annoying about the development and consequences for this particular piece of history.
For promotion of a new God concept/definition.
Especially they never like the Jesus idea. They would kill the Jesus figure by all means, politically/ scholarly/ theologically/ legally/ etc.
Perhaps there should have been a number of writings/literature about this issue. Why not?
Where are they? Were they completely and totally destroyed by any Christians purposely? When and how? Without encountering any objections by Jews, physically or else???
I think you'd find Jews look at the claims made about Jesus with similar incomprehension to that which Christians generally apply to Mohammed. The character has no real meaning to them.
When it is to do with religion, a story is stronger than any fact.
So the best way to reject one story is to create another, which in the case of Jews, tells how Bible Jesus does not embody the qualifications of Messiah.
After all as the Jesus figure was supposed to have been a Jew, maybe they would know.
1. I don't know much about other criticisms coming from any Jews leaders responding to the hard sayings in the bible from Jesus about Jews religious leaders of the era. Saying their (some of them) hypocritical acts would make them go to hell (something like that). How many Jews leaders (or religious leaders of any faiths) would respond in a peaceful way as if the Jesus figure is purely a fiction, by not trying to challenge the fictional figure in full strength. Instead, just clam by saying he is merely a prophet. The probability would be truly slim.
Please note that I personally do not think/consider Jesus was/is a religious leader. As mentioned/explained a few times in detail before.
2. It appears to me your explanation and logic above was weak, as I think Mohammad is a real person, not a fictional figure. Your logic implies indirectly Jesus is Also a real person, not a fictional figure. Just like Mohammad.
Who says Jews always responded in peaceful ways?
When the Roman Empire persecuted Jewish Christians, Judaism was enjoying special status which gave it priority over breakaway insurgent Jewish cults such as Christianity. So why wouldn't institutionalized Jews actively encourage the Jewish dissident's downfall by any means possible including violence, which of course they did.
For instance the Jewish authorities under the Roman Empire enjoyed certain tax emptions which Christian Jews also claimed for the same reason of being Jewish.
However Rabbis would then expel Jewish Christians from Judaism, having a direct impact on large numbers, causing them to face execution for making false representation.
No doubt the addition of 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...' was one of the more pragmatic rules Jewish Christians were obliged to think up after their revolt against the prevailing Jewish orthodoxy in order to overcome that harsh reality.
So no, Jewish leaders did not always respond peacefully. But neither did Christians after Constantine's conversion.
Yet the aggressive anti-Semite hatred and religious wars do not stop Christians describing theirs as the Judeo-Christian religion!
Considering the intense antipathy and aversion and downright hatred that exists against "the Christ killers", what would be your probability of that!?
So it comes as no surprise that Jews would take the line of calling fictional Jesus a prophet while at the same time dismissing any idea of Messiah.
As I said in religion you counter one story, not with fact, but with another story.
After all when push comes to shove, Jews are only essentially worshipping a fictional God entity also. Even hypocrisy has bounds in the end.
I'm at a loss to see how you can possibly think what I say implies Bible Jesus to be a real person.
And to be frank, that you think Mohammed was a real person bears no relationship to the fact that the figure has no sound grounding for historicity either.
Like Jesus, Mohammed is contrived around 100 years after his supposed death. Prophets tend to pop up that way.
Islamic text is in all reality, no less an article of blind faith as are the Gospels.
Both written as stories around a century after the events they refer to, with not one reliable word or record, note, mention or acknowledgement of either beforehand.
No contemporary reference or indications at all of either being prophets at the time of their supposed lives, in fact no trace of any kind. offering neither any sound evidence for historical existence. These great messianic concepts have no affect at the time but only impress retrospectively, long long after someone starts to write the story it seems.
Those are very telling indicators present in all things fictional.
Thanks Stu for your input. I think the issue is a very interesting one. And you seem knowledgeable in it. I hope I could understand more bout the issue. With an open mind, hopefully.
What I can do is to provide more questions, many more.
1. I think Mohammad did have his own writing. And his writing did accept the existence of Jesus, directly or indirectly, without anything disqualifying Jesus outright. Except that Jesus was only a prophet. I don't understand why?
That means both the Jews and Mohammad did not totally reject the possibility or reality of the Jesus figure. Or stating any qualifications subject to many questions about whether Jesus was truly exist once on earth.
I don't think this seemingly simple question about the true existence of Jesus had not been mentioned or challenged by the Jews and/or Mohammad alike. Why not?
If yes, there should have been literature for serious discussion that had been resolved but today you and me have not learned the literature yet.
2. Referring to the link about Santa Claus, we need to know there must be a source of originating the Santa figure. Whether the figure is originated from a real person or a collective people.
As mentioned before, the students of the ear wanting to study philosophy and religions were keen to find the best teachers and schools.
Why there was so mention of criticisms that well-known to the public about the fictitious Jesus figure by so many other philosophy schools, other than religions? For criticising the original documents that derived fictitious figures like Jesus.
Just very curious!
Open mindedness, questioning, curiosity. Commendable attributes
First, I think you'll find there is no actual historical evidence at all giving providence to any writings of Mohammed.
As mentioned previously, nothing whatsoever appears about him until around 100 years after his supposed death when Islam gets invented...except...
... a sliver of Greek text gives one tiny mention of the appearance of a false prophet during the Arab invasion of Siria. To those wanting to be convinced, apparently that is sufficient to prove it was the prophet Mohammed.
Second, I'm confused as to why you might think one lot of prophet seekers be they Jews or Mohammed (Islam) must or would need reject other different prophets.
Muslims say the Jesus character was a guide for everyone toward the prophet Mohammed, who is in turn supposed to be the only true revealer of Allah.
Jews don't deny Jesus but say he wasn't the Messiah and neither is Mohammed and as for Jews, whatever the Messiah might be, it hasn't arrived yet.
No doubt they had all learned off of the Romans, that inclusiveness can assist the growth and success of your own project. By accommodating Pagans , Jews, Christians, whatever into their Empire, they were able to make peace once they had conquered. It might be argued Constantine was the start of the demise after going all Christian on everyone.
I don't see why Jews need disqualify Jesus or Mohammed nor insist they didn't exist.
Religion is more about politics than it is about reflecting accurate history.
Well as far as Santa goes, you omitted to include imagination as a category source. It goes without saying, real people or not and imaginary concepts can be used as the source for a fictional character.
As far as students go, I'm not sure even the best schools and teachers coming from a culture and society suffused with religion are going to equip students with historically accurate critical information, especially on the subject of religion!
Under such circumstances a lot information would also be coming from authors or sources which are themselves steeped in religious bias, which unhappily to some degree remains the case.
Within the history of how religion indoctrinated every aspect of public society, and how it no longer can so easily (pleased to say), fictitious Jesus emerges.
1. Having read absolutely little about Mohammad, I cannot provide any comments on your points about him. I just heard most Muslims studied very hard his written words. I have had no ideas at all how and where his written words coming from.
There must be a source for that, whether the source was a single person or a group of people for their collective wisdom, no matter right or wrong! There must be research done on this source to investigate and verify whether from Mohammad or else.
2. Same questions about the ultimate source(s) of the written words spoken by Jesus.
3. This topic is all about probability. The probability of the words written/spoken by a single person should be much much higher than by a group of people that would extremely difficult for them to agree on their diversified views and words, also generating zero arguments among them during limited period of time. imo
In other words, there should be a leader among those people for producing a fictional figure and then quite a number of his words and theory/philosophy.
Due to arguments among the group members, one by one each would leave the group for insisting individual's opinion.
4. My personal view has been based on the facts of:
A. Justin - the Christian martyrdom and a converted Stoic student. He was not actually a Stoic.
B. Galen - the personal physician of Marcus Aurelius, who 'considered Christianity nothing more than a "third-rate" philosophy'. He was not a Stoic. But a very talented physician.
C. The Gospel of Mary - centred on Nature and reason, rather than any miracles.
D. Paul - the one once willing to kill many believers of Jesus and probably (I guess) destroying all evidences related to Jesus until he produced his own writing in the bible as evidence of Jesus.
E. The Acts in the bible - mentioning about Epicurean and Stoic philosophers.
F. Many of the words from Jesus in the bible provide certain consistence - most likely derived from a single person's wisdom rather than collectively from a group of people. Disregarding whether the theory from Jesus was/is original or else.
G. The existence of 12 closely allied followers - who would have to provide consistent lies by each one of them if Jesus was merely an imagination of a truly fictional figure. And some of them actually died for their silly lies - for what. Many others as well, including the stupid Justin.
5. Nearly all of the above points have been mentioned before with links for books/webpages or else. My personal view is I would not categorically the historical existence of Jesus as an independent thinker, just like many of the philosophers/ scholars or some atheists.
6. Not trying to seek or get a right or wrong conclusion/answer. Just an opinion worth 2 cents! LOL
Sure, but far better than opinion would be external historical or archaeological evidence to support the existence of either Jesus or Mohammed.
There is non. Nothing. Not one jot enough to show either did actually exist.
Only naive stories, gullibility, claims, assertion, lame argument, indoctrination, dissemblance or blind ignorant faith.
Nothing which conforms with the most basic ordinary critical historical scrutiny which everything must provide to confirm historicity.
Here is another question.
Stoicism was supposed "the most prominent and widely respected philosophy of the day."
Perhaps everyone basically can become a student of Jesus. However, only some people can become a student of philosophers. Requiring to learn so many things for so many years. Stoicism might be one of the hardest.
One thing cannot be easily explained is after (and during the process of) Christianity superseding Stoicism as a more popular and dominant theory, non of the Stoics would write down anything about the problematic issue regarding whether Christianity was based on a true or fake existence of Jesus? And whether Jesus was a fictional figure or historical teacher?
Personally I don't think All the Stoics of the era would keep just silence if anyone among them could feel any problematic issues, particularly Jesus' existence, directly! Or comments/ criticisms on Jesus's teaching. Other than from Justin's?
My guess is there must have had some, but already disappeared and long gone, no more anything could be found by nowadays.
Very very curious indeed!
But of course it can be "easily explained".
You make it sound as if Christianity started as a thing , but it was nothing of the kind.
What would eventually evolve into Christianity through a period of at least 2 centuries started out ambiguously in the form of a bunch of Jewish upstarts, many of whom would be Stoics within a range of beliefs and various religious practices, whose principle aim was primarily to renounce the Roman and Judaistic law strongly opposed by them.
This was a group of activists, a breakaway counter culture insurgency.
It was not Christian nor was it a form of what would become to be known as Christianity , nor was it a coherent idea or philosophy on those lines indeed, had there been a Jesus, he would certainly not be trying to start a new religion. Nothing associated with any Galilean cult not of the Jewish faith.
These were devout practicing Jews who strongly rejected the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Judaism, that was making life and death decisions due to Roman law against fellow Jews.
So who is going to write at the supposed time of Jesus that Jesus is fake when there is isn't even any such thing as a Christ or a Christian religion for at least another 100 years later.
There is no Jesus leading a revolt against the establishment. That story was written a hundred years later to become the narrative for the Gospels which by the way don't even contain the word Christian or anything about a new religion.
A staunch supporter of Hellenistic philosophy (of which Stoicism is a school) at the time Christianity was gaining traction 300 years later, was Emperor Julian - Pontifex Maximus.
Emporer and foremost power within ancient Rome on religious matters who writes; there was nothing in the way of evidence for a Christ and Christians must be worshipping "a Jewish corpse".
Then there is Pliny, Galen, Celsus, Porphyry who are some of the big critics of Christianity at the time of Stoic philosophy and after.
The more you look critically, the less there is to support any Bible Jesus or prophet Mohammed. For either to be historical figures, it should be the other way round.
1. It looks to me the above timelines are off very much, comparing to what I learned. Concurrently several of the points mentioned were also arguable. Probably even moving to a further weaker or ambiguous position.
I would appreciate if you can provide further more solid sources especially web links on the engagements between Stoics and Christianity.
Justin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr
Flavia Neapolis, Samaria (modern-day Nablus)
Died 165 (aged 65)
Rome, Roman Empire ) wrote two famous early apologies for Christianity by himself. During the reign of the emperor Antoninus Pius (138 - 160 CE).
Since he was a Christian converted from a Stoicism student, Justin should be a good and reliable source for understanding the engagements between Stoicism and Christianity.
2. The death of Socrates was due to below convictions.
" The trial of Socrates (399 BC) was held to determine the philosopher’s guilt of two charges: asebeia (impiety) against the pantheon of Athens, and corruption of the youth of the city-state; the accusers cited two impious acts by Socrates: “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”."
Do you know what was/were the conviction(s) details, besides being a Christian, for Justin's accusation causing his death as martyr?
" Still, even in the Roman Empire, death did not necessarily come easily to dissenters. It took Justine fifteen years of formal, public grievances before the emperor considered Justin as much of a threat to the stability and peace of the empire as Justin did the emperors." - book edited by Rasimus/etc, on page 195 authored by Denzey (Harvard Uni and Brown Uni)
Why didn't the Roman emperor(s) find out proofs once and for all to destroy completely the whole Christianity by attacking the existence of a historical Jesus?
Or it didn't matter after all: Why didn't the Roman emperor(s) can simply use this excuse, as a similar crime against Socrates, to punish Justin and alike Christians?
Why it tool 15 years long for Justin case if the problematic figure Jesus was a fake news that anyone one of the 12 Jesus' followers can provide truthful confess that (s)he had actually never talked or contacted such a person called Jesus?
3. There was no any other philosophers (who are supposedly having independent thinking mind with professional training in logic) besides All Stoics wrote down anything for criticising Christianity based on non-existence of the Jesus figure, physically?
The Stoics were among the best with their own branch of logic theory (almost totally lost in its original form and details). imo, they were not the philosophers willing to let this Jesus-existence isuue go away easily, without writing anything down, or saying anything about it. Because the whole profession of philosophers is about arguing and debating with logic and reason, especially in public forums during the age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Forum
Argument from Ignorance
(also known as: appeal to ignorance)
Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.
Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.
Here are some links about Stoic Logic.
Is Stoic logic similar to other common logic systems? What's so special about Stoic logic? Are these links showing/explaining the original form/structure of Stoic logic?
Diodorus Cronus, who was one of Zeno's teachers, is considered the philosopher who first introduced and developed an approach to logic now known as propositional logic. This is an approach to logic based on statements or propositions, rather than terms, making it very different from Aristotle's term logic. Later, Chrysippus developed a system that became known as Stoic logic and included a deductive system, Stoic Syllogistic, which was considered a rival to Aristotle's Syllogistic (see Syllogism). New interest in Stoic logic came in the 20th century, when important developments in logic were based on propositional logic. Susanne Bobzien wrote, "The many close similarities between Chrysippus' philosophical logic and that of Gottlob Frege are especially striking."
Bobzien also notes that "Chrysippus wrote over 300 books on logic, on virtually any topic logic today concerns itself with, including speech act theory, sentence analysis, singular and plural expressions, types of predicates, indexicals, existential propositions, sentential connectives, negations, disjunctions, conditionals, logical consequence, valid argument forms, theory of deduction, propositional logic, modal logic, tense logic, epistemic logic, logic of suppositions, logic of imperatives, ambiguity and logical paradoxes."
Main article: Stoic categories
The Stoics held that all being (ὄντα) – though not all things (τινά) – is material. They accepted the distinction between concrete bodies and abstract ones, but rejected Aristotle's belief that purely incorporeal being exists. Thus, they accepted Anaxagoras' idea (as did Aristotle) that if an object is hot, it is because some part of a universal heat body had entered the object. But, unlike Aristotle, they extended the idea to cover all accidents. Thus if an object is red, it would be because some part of a universal red body had entered the object.
They held that there were four categories.
The primary matter, formless substance, (ousia) that things are made of
The way matter is organized to form an individual object; in Stoic physics, a physical ingredient (pneuma: air or breath), which informs the matter
somehow disposed (πως ἔχον)
Particular characteristics, not present within the object, such as size, shape, action, and posture
Somehow disposed in relation to something (πρός τί πως ἔχον)
Characteristics related to other phenomena, such as the position of an object within time and space relative to other objects
The Stoics propounded that knowledge can be attained through the use of reason. Truth can be distinguished from fallacy—even if, in practice, only an approximation can be made. According to the Stoics, the senses constantly receive sensations: pulsations that pass from objects through the senses to the mind, where they leave an impression in the imagination (phantasia) (an impression arising from the mind was called a phantasma).
The mind has the ability to judge (συγκατάθεσις, synkatathesis)—approve or reject—an impression, enabling it to distinguish a true representation of reality from one that is false. Some impressions can be assented to immediately, but others can only achieve varying degrees of hesitant approval, which can be labeled belief or opinion (doxa). It is only through reason that we achieve clear comprehension and conviction (katalepsis). Certain and true knowledge (episteme), achievable by the Stoic sage, can be attained only by verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgment of humankind.
2. According to Anthony Kenny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kenny , "Where Aristotle used letters as variables in his logical texts, the Stoics used numbers; this is a trivial difference, but more importantly, where Aristotle's variables stood in for terms, Stoic variables stood in for whole sentences, or rather for elements that are capable of being whole sentences." ... ... "In late antiquity Aristotelian logic and Stoic logic were regarded as rivals, and while the Stoics' own writings have not survived, we have much evidence of polemics between supporters of the two systems."
By today the original writings of Stoic logic literature after destroying can now never been found. The existing writings are supposed following the structure and spirit of the original system.
Can we say the original system had never existed?
There was a small Pacific island of 500 residences. One day a seaman arrived by a safe boat.
After a period of time, the seaman disappeared, and can never be seen again in the island.
Can we safely say the seaman has never existed in the island?
No proof of birth certificate in the island by any medical doctors! No any writing can be found from his belongings.
This timeline below shows Seneca the Stoic, a Roman Statesman, was the Stoic most closely related to early Christianity. And he could be also possibly one of them.
The early Christian Church was very favorably disposed towards Seneca and his writings, and the church leader Tertullian possessively referred to him as "our Seneca."
Medieval writers and works (such as the Golden Legend, which erroneously presents Nero as a witness to Seneca's suicide) believed Seneca had been converted to the Christian faith by Saint Paul, and early humanists regarded his fatal bath as a kind of disguised baptism.
Marcus Aurelius the Stoic, Roman Emperor of the era, was, willingly or unwillingly, allowing the early growth of Christianity.
Marcus Aurelius (/ɔːˈriːliəs/; Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus;[notes 1] 26 April 121 – 17 March 180 AD) was Emperor of Rome from 161 to 180. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. Marcus Aurelius was the last of the so-called Five Good Emperors. He was a practitioner of Stoicism, and his untitled writing, commonly known as Meditations, is a significant source of the modern understanding of ancient Stoic philosophy, and is considered by many commentators to be one of the greatest works of philosophy.
I don't see the problem here with timelines nor with connections betweem Stoics and Christianity.
Stoicism is a philosophy more than it is a religion in competition with another religion. Why wouldn't Stoics become apologetics for new religions if it fitted.
Because as you later suggest, it didn't matter.
There is no real reason for you to assume Christianity was big or ugly or threatening enough to warrant an all out war on it .Except unless you simplistically believe everything the religion itself tells you.
Roman Emperors generally turned a blind eye to religions. Most were tolerated as long as they did nothing directly subversive toward the State or were rebellious. Christianity was diffuse and sporadic for a long time and came in many forms and varieties. There was no specific threat to the Establishment.
The only ones getting upset were other Jews who were not part of what much later morphed into Christianity. They might feel threatened by their fellow Jew's refusal to comply with Judaistic strictures. But that's all. The Romans had no need or desire to be at the front of that.
And there is no substantive contemporary account of particular persecution against Christians. What there is mostly emanates from Christian apologists and much later, the Church.
I just don't see why you assume Christianity was big or ugly or threatening enough at the time to warrant an all out war on it except for the propaganda later constructed by the Church.
I stated there was no [Bible] Jesus [Christ] or Christians leading a revolt against the Roman establishments.
Justin is adding to the basic religious story taking shape. I repeat, the Gospels being written elswhere by others which Justin would have read or had knowledge of, do not even contain the term Christian. So as a "Christian" movement, it bore little or no threat to Imperial Rome.
So Justin is substantially shaping a Gentile's grassroots religion. The New Testament wasn't even fully formed and it was apologetics like Julian who were developing the narrative of Christianity, a 100 plus years after the supposed events they depict.
I think it reasonable to say Stoicism and Christianity melded more than clashed and the more simplistic faith based system took over.
b.t.w Non of what you're posting affords Jesus any historicity, which is the thread topic!
Thanks for your contribution Stu. Did a great job. Also a good progress!
Just want to add my thoughts from the last few days.
My understanding is that being a Stoic in Jesus' era wasn't easy due to the acquisition process of attaining the level of training and knowledge of Stoicism (ethics/physics/logic).
Being a Stoic sage would be even like a supreme court judge. Making reasonable and logical conclusions without emotions. Letting the whole Jesus story develop into a leading religion, overtaking the dominance of Stoicism by saying nothing from any Stoic sage should be mostly likely almost impossible, imo.
A good chance for the Stoics didn't do anything, say anything, or write anything about whether positive or negative of Jesus could be because they probably know/think that Jesus was actually an undercover mini-Stoic. LOL
How the Jesus the mini-Stoic story was later evolved into a leading organised religion with a lot of miracles and unexplained addendums would be entirely another long long story that may be completely beyond Jesus' expectations. :
Naturally the Biblical Gospels can be dismissed as a work of the imagination of those who came centuries(?) later than the historical Jesus. The writings of Paul are the most authentic we have from a time within a century of the time of the historical Jesus. Josephus was later, and sadly, none of his original brief mention of the crucifixion of Jesus survives; all we have are copies, We assume Josephus was using official Roman documents as his source, but he could have been relying on hearsay. (Don't forget to spell crucifixion with an "x". If you spell it with a "ct" it becomes cruci-fiction.
Paul seems to have been an opportunist, somewhat equivalent to the TV evangelists we have today --think Joel Osteen. Paul knew Jesus's brother James. That, to me, is a better and more reliable indication that there really was an historical Jesus than is the Josephus account of the crucifixion.. Curiously, Jesus was not the Founder of Christianity, but rather Paul and James, jointly. They both were demagogues, but Paul was the more practical.
Paul and James seemed to have had a falling out over whether adult males had to be circumcised to join their cult. Naturally most adults were not enthusiastic. It hurt like the dickens and you could die from infection. Paul realized that circumcision was going to be a downer and its lack of appeal would limit the number of followers of the new Christ cult, so Paul said, "fuck it,"you can keep your foreskin and still be a Christian." But James, who was already circumcised and had survived it, said, "No Way, Man". Thus the two, Paul and James, parted company over foreskin. Paul, understandably, succeeded in promotion of the Jesus myth more than James. Today, with anesthesia and antibiotics, James might have had a better chance.
After Paul got the Christ myth up and running --people would believe anything in those days-- others, like Popes and whatnot, took over the thriving enterprise. After some interruptions for stretching on the rack, cutting out of tongues, etc., Christianity eventually became both a fashionable and profitable business venture. Today the Christian Business manages to rake in Billions worldwide.
1. The historical Jesus based on the success and prediction of John the Baptist strategically and wisely developed a new and simple theory that would lead people to understand the Ethical part of Stoicism, leaving the two other difficult parts (Physics and Logic) of Stoicism to mainly the Stoic philosophers.
Through indicating clearly and firmly that Water Baptism is just for now which is not an end, because there will be a Fire Baptism in the future for his followers/students.
What's that Fire Baptism? It could be just Stoicism. That's why the Stoics of the age didn't bother to criticise Jesus much, or at all. Because Jesus mentioned clearly about Fire Baptism. A very clear signal leads people to understand the importance of Fire, which is one of the important element in Stoicism physics/theory.
2. Looks like there has been lack of formal studies about Fire Baptism in Christian theology. Common believers in Christianity would probably don't really or actually understand what it is!
However, it is one of the most important aspects for his followers after water baptism which is only the very first step of their whole journey, according to Jesus stated in the gospels, repeatedly.
3. In Stoicism, " We must get used to the fact that for the Stoics it is no problem that god is fire." - page 227 in " Stoic Theology - Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods " by PA Meijer. https://eburon.nl/en/product/stoic_theology/
This ancient concept of cosmic god in Stoicism matches very much our modern physics framework of today.
Thanks for the civil discourse OT.
I think you are putting far too much emphasis on Stoicism as a specific influence or even counter force to religion.
The insurrection that later evolved itself into Christianity would have contained plenty of stoics, the main philosophy of which states virtue is based on behavior rather than words. It was rebellious and warring Jews which laid the grounding for Christianity and they would of course have considered their actions in line with stoic reasoning.
Like the Romans and their contemporary Jews, they were highly superstitious, creating a new God to appease the Romans and self-servingly reassure themselves they were in the right.
You may as well say Lord Voldemort knew Harry Potter's mother Lily.
With no evidence the writer of Paul was even called Paul, the epistles written by that (those) author(s) whoever they were, hardly refer to Jesus as a living person but reference the character only in terms of a heavenly or celestial being. In other words, a fictional entity.
The historical reasoning that confirmed a similar portion of text was forged by Christian apologetics (probably aggravated that such a notable historian as Josephus had not mentioned anything about a Bible Jesus or Christ), also raises the very same serious doubts about "Paul knew Jesus's brother James".
No doubt there will come a time when the "consensus" which claim otherwise are obliged stop using the same unreliable and invalid arguments they still rely upon as they have done before.
Also, To say there was an historical Jesus is to say there was an historical Tom, Dick or Harry. The name Yeshua (Jesus) was common at the time.
1. The possibility should be reasonably high that the original and very-early Christians who followed the Real Jesus' Real teachings behaved very differently than the later Christians who followed the Bible teachings after it's canonized.
A. The emperors and Paul-before-conversion were not able to kill all too many very early Christian believers that were growing far too much than the emperors expected and controlled/killed. Then a plan devised for a new Christianity generation according to a canonized Bible defined by them (paid for by the rulers/emperors) was devised/created by Paul-before-conversion yo make them - the believers becoming much more moderate/conservative. Rather than so aggressive and progressive as behaved by some of the very-early believers.
2. The true reason(s) why the very-early Christians were persecuted by their emperors is not obvious, nor be easily found/understood. As all evidences could have been destroyed purposely.
A. The Bible Jesus told them they should follow the state law. Unless the Real Jesus told the very-early believers the otherwise. imo, the role of Jesus from various angles was a reformer by default/nature.
Hence, a movement initiated by the Real Jesus was then changed to an organised institutional religion designed by the authority and appointees (probably headed by the Paul-after-conversion), in order to avoid further more killings.
B. If the very-early believers did follow state law as defined by the rulers/emperors that required them not to preach Jesus, would they follow the law?
3. A. If the Paul-before-conversion actually knew James was a believer of Jesus, perhaps James would have been killed immediately. Whether James was Jesus' brother or not.
B. Probably it was the Paul-after-conversion who after converting to a believer was later introduced to James by others.
Well that's as good a story as any, and better than most.
Obviously your story is much better than the ones of mine.
I wish I myself could understand what I am trying to post here.
Well hell yeah. Good stories do tend to have the element of truth in them.
Real Jesus called Estas
Fake Jesus no play geetar
Personally, I wouldn't underestimate the intelligence and capability of those guys working on various scientific approaches/projects including the width/depth of developing their ethics, physics and logic systems.
Why 2,000 Year-Old Roman Concrete Is So Much Better Than What We Produce Today
Caesarea is the earliest known example to have used underwater Roman concrete technology on such a large scale.
Sometimes we think we are nowadays much better in science development. And they living in 2,000 years ago were just primitive in everything - nothing scientific. Perhaps we need to re-think about it, twice.
So no problems establishing a 2,000 year old lump of concrete's historical existence, while on the other hand Jesus's presents all sorts of nothing.
In Stoic logic, AFAIK, a speech is very different from a saying/logos.
Just 2 cents: A problem with atheist would be there has been not enough systematic scholarly research and studies formally dedicated to establish a school of thoughts and knowledge.
That could be a real problem for any self-claimed atheists, without requiring any professional training or following a set of knowledge base!
Either someone who just learns nothing and studies nothing can easily claim to be an atheist.
Or (s)he would have to understand all sorts of religions in order to establish herself/himself to be an atheist. In order to defend whatever challenges by any religious believers, researchers, scholars, theologians, etc.
However, it would be almost impossible to study so much about all religions or various definitions of God as claimed by whatever believers.
imo, the best candidates as atheists would be professional trained philosophy scholars/academics. But still, imo, they cannot establish a body of knowledge for atheists. There is no theologians in atheism. How could they argue and debate against others who are knowledgeable in their own field of studies like Christianity or Christian theology.
Perhaps the latest development is they try to organise their collective knowledge by building up a web like this one:
covering various threads, like these:
But again, an atheist would have to learn so much about all things in order to become an atheist. Otherwise, (s)he would be quite weak in defending her/his position. Especially when wanting to challenge others for their faiths.
That's relatively primitive, imo. Not many capable people can do it well by becoming an atheist who is able to posses so much various knowledge about all faiths plus philosophy schools.
If there are some, I would like to know their names and learn their independent thoughts, besides non-believing in all-religions.
Here is another web already mentioned some time ago:
Many contributors are academics, AFAIK. https://infidels.org/infidels/honorary.html
imo, there should be many differences between a Real Jesus (before any physical church was openly built) and Canonized Jesus.
Perhaps Dawkins should have started to lead a team to build up a well-established body of knowledge on Atheism. But he hasn't yet.
..... don't be too hard on yourself. With all the subtly of a Trump tweet, at least you've managed to derail your own thread.
The Canonized Jesus was just different!
imo, Stoicism could be just like the Roman concrete technology, old but scientifically advance when comparing to today's contemporary knowledge.
imo, Stoicism would be simply a practical philosophy system that could be suitable to every daily secular person without any belief in religion while living in a democratic society. No churches, No religions and No institutions. Just individuals. And every individual is equal. No classes.
Perhaps a model has been developed/existed longer than 2,000 years ago, that many of us nowadays without knowing its existence might be still trying hard to find a similar model, without much success. imo
The Real Jesus could be equivalent to simply a 1/3 Stoic, focusing on only ethics part. Leaving the other two parts for physics and logic to some dedicated professionals. Since these two parts apparently require much more intellectual energy that most common people would not like to spend in them.
Could This Ancient Porn Change The Way We Think About Christianity And Homosexuality?
This is the world in which the New Testament was written.
I think some people would be very interested to see if there would be an established organisation doing serious/formal research supported by ample funding for studying atheism, in order to build up a body of knowledge, possibly.
Especially a/the definition of God!
how 'bout fake
A fake God is also a God, as long as you can define it!
You could even develop a religion based on any fake God you like/define/worship.
That's not totally new, nor unique, in human history.
how 'bout fake as in made-up as in fictional
As mentioned before, in Stoic logic, a speech/statement is very different from a saying/logos.
Unless the atheists have a clear definition of God, they cannot effectively say there is no God.
Whenever saying there is no God, that means the atheists know well what is God and there is no such God existing per the definition accepted/agreed by both believers and atheists.
But what is that definition? Actually the atheists do not agree with (basically) All the definitions according to mainstream religions.
Perhaps the atheists should have said something like "We don't know what is God yet, and we don't accept All the definitions by your believers of all faiths, according to our research so far.
Please check our BoK systematically developed from the last several decades. We have our own research institutions and universities, backed by well-known professors and scholars, plus a number of PhD graduates who are currently teaching in not only high schools but also many other first tier world class universities worldwide among countries of all faiths.
And we atheists are still working on the definition of God, as there might be a God that we don't understand because we don't know yet. However this unknown God would be, we think, surely not what you guys believe in your conventional ways from various existing religions."
AFAIK, an atheist nowadays would be actually either a philosopher, humanist, rationalist, naturalist, skeptic, etc. that do not usually accept any common definition of God from various faiths.
how 'bout imaginary then.
.... btw, isn't it up to the theist who makes the claim, to have the clear definition. The atheist isn't supposed to.
The atheist doesn't make the definition, the atheist interrogates the theist's definition.
And when the theist does have a definition of God -which is invariably anything but clear- fake, made-up, fictional, imaginary are all adjectives that describe the theist's definition.
By the same token that an aunicornist can effectively say there is no Unicorn, an atheist can effectively say there is no God
It is my opinion that Gods have been invented by man for man.
There was a documentary not too long ago that provided some insight as to why crucifix nails were found with the remains of high priests. It was said to be a form of luck?
There's nothing lucky about having nails that were pulled out of hands and feet of suffering individuals dying on the cross.
I can understand some people don't like the term God. But we can call God something else. Such as Super-All-Things, or Super-Santa?
Names like Santa, MacDonald, etc could be also man-made. Not real. They represent a meaning - a construct for something.
If I am open-minded, I would understand there is a construct representing something that includes so many things of that many we can see and many we cannot see as well as many we don't even know by today's science.
If I am asking what is the name for that construct, some people would tell me that is God. And I would be happy to learn more about what they have found about the God they know.
If the God they know is just part of the whole construct, I would then try to find more about the construct with a systematic approach, methodically. During the process, I wouldn't mind to communicate with others by saying the God I am searching looks like more than what you told me before, much much more.
I could even share with them about the God I have found so far, hoping that their feedback and criticism can point me to a better definition.
Why would I give up this challenging process by simply saying that they/you are wrong - Full Stop?
By allowing the God construct being a source of many proven illogical and unreasonable problems existing forever without any thorough investigation or research - serious study?
Is that scientific - mind or approach? No, of course Not! That not spending time/energy in investigating that would be just an escape and avoidance from a real issue/topic, unless you don't see it is an issue/topic. A thing for a man with an independent mind like the Real Jesus would not do.
All the famous atheists could not easily ignore the above questions. Otherwise, they are just believing a Non-God, which is to reject whatever anything about God, once hearing and watching the word God. Is that open-minded or scientific approach?
Just 2 cents. LOL
how 'bout a better definition would be.... your ego.
Did I say I don't have any ego?
What I meant was, if I found something I am personally interested I would pursuit to find answers.
I wouldn't discourage anyone to do anything that would be her/his personal interest. Do you?
And I don't consider that would be her/his own ego alone.
Especially, when some believers of any faiths in the past history as well as in the present days tried to kill other innocent people in the name of God.
LOL - I didn't say you are wrong either! Thanks for your positive comments! And the baits!
Many Christians reject the practical application of The New Testament and prefer the Old one.
For instance Christ's stand against the orthodox Judaism at the Temple where he upset the money changer's tables. He certainly would have objected to today's greedy capitalists.
He advocated forgiveness of one's enemy when most people would rather bash them.
Revenge is mine etc...........It hardly ever works out that way. The villains just get away with it.
Pampering criminals in prison is another mute point.
I learned the gospels were written later than Paul's letters. I believe so.
The western countries and their overall culture and laws have been greatly influenced by the values and principles of the old testament and gospels, according to some writers nowadays. My paraphrase. I agree.
They say every person living today is actually affected directly and indirectly by this same whole framework. I agree.
Elimination of slaves practice and providing education to females were two outstanding examples that were initiated by progressive Christians. I think they were/are truly remarkable.
I would say a lot of problems still around today are due to culture and laws being influenced by Christian values.
Indeed many Christians used the Bible to defend the institution of slavery. Many still very much use it today to marginalize and discriminate against others.
Equality, inclusiveness and progress usually occur despite Christian values, not because of them.
Christian values like Islamic values and pretty much any other religious values can be used in part to present a benign appearance, but on the whole offer up an ugly picture.
Old Testament is a classic manual for hate bigotry and malevolence matched only by Mein Kampf.
It's empathy first, not Christian values, which brings good into the world. There is no good thing that cannot be achieved without religion.
For most western countries, there were a long period of time they were ruled by kings implementing theocratic system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy. The kings and his spiritual guider followed the Christian bible.
Many times even the spiritual guider who had better knowledge and wits was the actual ruler, rather than the king, especially youth king who has no time to study the bible which contains a number of conflicting information for people to make diverse and confusing decisions differently, without clear answers.
That's why the king needs to consult the spiritual guider for answers on various subjects/issues, and this guider sometimes also the kings teacher since he was a boy. That's why the guider was often the real king. ...
It's a long time tradition in various cultures. Even nowadays,
The king's words were laws in a theocratic system. Rather than based on science, logic, rationality, statistics, and/ or human nature/behaviour.
Many of the modern democratic countries were also having a long period of time defining laws based on the same bible, which then became the source of arguments and settlements.
When most the laws makers in these democratic countries were wealthy Christians with powers and owning lands, the laws were based on so-called Christian principles and values according to the 'knowledgeable' Christians in order to protect the wealth, lands, principles, values. etc.
The laws defined in that way by those makers were actually unfair laws in today's standards where seeking equality, liberty and inclusiveness. That's why almost every country they need to have a committee for updating their old laws that are still applicable and effective nowadays. Too many are pending to be updated.
After reading that " When religions have a "holy book," it is used as a direct message from God. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. As to the Prophet Muhammad ruling, "The first thirteen of the Prophet's twenty-three year career went on totally apolitical and non-violent. This attitude partly changed only after he had to flee from Mecca to Medina. ..." from the above link, I searched for its source then found the following relevant page.
Looks quite informative to me, as I have been thinking to learn a bit about this topic.
If there really is a God then people ask why the heck is he doing allowing the Hitlers and Stalins of this world.
The evasive answer has to be on the lines that He lets humans work out their own destiny.
My answer is that the theory of God plays a useful part in human life but is man made.
Has anyone been able to prove Gods existence ? NO
Ditto with ET etc. People seem to need more than just facts.
There are two schools of definition of God that I understand.
One is man-making God, as the Stoics would think. But we don't fully understand the man-making process yet. Maybe one day our scientists can find out more details about the man-making process. The Stoics also call this God other names including Nature, Universe, Reason, Logos, Nature Law, etc. - All in one! The Stoicism has a whole set of ethics based on law of nature according to human nature and behaviour. Everyone is an individual and equal. One of the leading Stoic in his era was once a slave. Another one was an emperor. Most people don't like this God concept because their teacher always tells them to be an independent thinker, just like the Real Jesus. (my paraphrase) Too hard! Eternity is nothing more than what a man would contribute to humankind while on earth.
Another is man-made God, as many man-made religions would think. They individually define their God as what they want/like the God to be. And they would like to do many things in the name of God. Most often they don't really like science, whenever any science is against their theory/theology according to their old-time history. Some of the extremists believing they can kill others in the name of this God concept, because sometimes they can even hear clearly what their God tells them what to do. Many people prefer this God concept because they just follow what their teacher tells them to do. Fairly simple! Besides, believers are promised to have eternal life in heaven!
The Stoicism God, AFAIK, is a Scientific God that is based on evidence and statistics, therefore this Scientific God is observable in our daily life, with a universal spirit of Nature that exists orderly and systemically in everything and all things of that each is equally part of God, especially living plants and living animals including humans such as the Real Jesus, who was/is also part of God. Who also had/has shared the same God spirit with all others/things alive, humans, animals and plants.
Furthermore, this Scientific God in Stoicism is about not only ethics, but also physics and logic. These three streams are not completely isolated nor unrelated. To certain degree, they relate to and support each other among them. A bit amazing, if not unrealistic. Stoics are not only independent thinkers, but also systems thinkers.
That's what I know. LOL
Based on evidence and statistics, science hence is developed/deployed/used as a tool to understand/know/investigate systematically and methodically more and more about God. Most likely a never finishing process.
Logically, there would be no absolute timeline defined for how soon, how much, how fast, and how far humans should develop advanced and more advanced science by utilising unlimited resources. Therefore, a bit slowing down of science advancement and weaponry research and development may be a good thing if the resources could be alternatively allocated for helping more humans for better well-being.
Many people would consider that good evidence,panzerman; i most likely would, if i lived in Arabia. Scientific study of scriptures is better; as Rich Dennis says ''do your own research''
Anyone that has bought real estate has used a title deed or deed of trust, mostly. The fact that a renter or group of renters does not believe in a real estate title deed would be funny- if not tragic.
Faith is the title deed-Hebrews 11;1 Amplified Classic Edition Bible.Thanks
Good point; God knocked Saul[aka Paul] off his horse or knocked him to the ground + had a Word chat with him............................................... Sounds a little bit like my hard head bro LOL.
Epistles of Paul written by someone suffering head trauma.
That sounds reasonable.
Amazing the minds of many people nowadays are still resisting science facts and discoveries. Mainly because of believing and following their holy books!
Good to make distinctions such as "Bible Jesus" and "Real Jesus", "Paul-before-conversion" ect.
Yes, gotta wonder why James was not targeted in Saul's (Paul-before-compromise) campaign to drive down the earliest version of Jesus' followers, which Saul called "the Way", if we can believe one biblical record. Perhaps James did not really represent what Saul was going after. Perhaps James had already compromised his brother's teachings so much that James did not represent a challenge to Jewish/Pharisaic supremacy.
Later, when Saul adopted a compromised version of Jesus' teachings to his own satisfaction (as a hard-core Pharisee and Roman citizen), he would become a pain in the ass toward James, who had already compromised in favor of the local ruling class (Judaism).
I believe the rift between Paul and James became so acute that James set Paul up to be captured and condemned (by inviting him to visit, and convincing him to do stupid and dangerous things like shave his head, take and oath, and visit the Temple with a gentile in tow), by exposing him to a mob of Jews who would recognize Paul from his insanely compromised preaching around the Mediterranean, liked neither by the Jews, nor James who was heavily compromised by the Jews.
1. My guess is the God Jesus believes in the Bible is the Stoicism god. That is an everybody's God, believers and non-believers of any faith or no faith.
Just like Jesus mentioned 'raining is for all guys (usage), not merely for a few ("selected").'
2. Any kind of sidetrack should be avoided/minimised.
I checked wikipedia on Stoicism to bring my understanding up to speed on this view.
I agree Stoicism plays a formulative role in the development of christian doctrine.
It appears Stoicism and the evolving faith compromised philosophy called "christianity" diverge most apparently at the idea of God.
The Stoics see God as the universe as we generally see, as well as the motives, intelligence, reason and energy that move it. As such, Stoicism is somewhat described as pantheism, and how to handle oneself from that point of view.
As we all know, either through faith or reason, the most popular evolved christianity has decided to reject the notion of divinely imbued pantheism, even though it pronounces a world of seas, trees and bees to be made (inexplicably) by the God, preferring to believe it was made from nothing, such as a "void", rather than of the very being of the God.
Rather, it reserves the very being of the God to one man, and one man only, who is said to be both man and God 100%, as if he was made of something, while everything else was made of nothing. Yet, it calls everything that was made from nothing "good", which in my lexicon means "God". Thus, the popular evolved christianity is attempting to be God, while denying they are trying. I see this as cognitive dissonance. The idea that one man can be God implies strongly that any/every man can be God. To deny it, christians are fond of using the term "like Christ", meaning, like God. But when it comes to defining what "like" means, we find out that christians intend to maintain a difference. Again, cognitive dissonance while attempting to merge two very opposites states of being (like and unlike).
Based on my understanding of the probable philosophy of Jesus, neither of these represent perfectly the reasoned view of Jesus, who would have been familiar with Stoic principles going all the way back to Plato and Plato's "Cave" analogy.
I have often used the term reverse pantheism to describe my view, as well as his. I believe i coined this term myself.
Reverse pantheism means that whatever is motivating matter (the material world of seas, trees and bees) is mis-representing the true Self. Indeed, the material world is a kind of "self", taken as a whole. Yes, it has a common cause and "reason" (logos), as the Stoics would say. The modern term is "intelligent design".
But what i'm saying is that the design is neither representative, nor benign, nor well reasoned.
By "reverse", i mean that the self represented by the material universe of seas, tree and bees is exactly opposite of the actual, true universe, which i call reality. Not only opposite, but also upside down, backwards, and inside out. Thus, one world represents everything that the original world (reality) is not. As such, it is an utter mockery of all that is really "good", which i call reality, but also call the true Self.
Yes, it is a "self", but i say, and i believe Jesus meant, that "self" is better described as the proverbial "prodigal son".
This would tend to explain why the temporary nature of this world appears to be a well established legacy of Jesus' teachings.
The popular evolved christianity has taken a more Stoic view, insisting that a world of matter is permanent, and, if it is destroyed for any reason, it will be restored, because the basic principle is still "good".
Not so, in my way of thinking, nor do i believe Jesus accepted it at "good" either.
Rather, i believe Jesus described it as "hell", as do i.
Further, i would describe the reverse pantheistic manifestation as the "anti Christ", not as one man-like entity as the popular evolved christianity sirens, but as the whole total of everything that was made from the "void" of nothing.
If this is the case, then the objectives of Jesus will be markedly different from those of the average social justice warrior.
It appears the Stoics aimed at social justice, but without the emotions of a warrior.
In either case, i believe the objectives are mis-lead by holding the incorrect premise.
The energy put into social justice might well be better expended on what i'll describe as escape.
The difference is that social justice warriors intend to stay and make the pantheistic self a better place for each individual "self" within it. Perhaps that is also the objective of Stoicism. It requires alot of attention to the problems generated by what i see as a faulty premise.
I don't believe that was Jesus objective.
I believe his objective was to escape the domain of the false self, and return to the domain of the true Self.
Going in that direction, he was seen/described as the "God" who made the world. He did not exactly deny this. Rather, i see this as a confession, and/or admission in taking responsibility for the making of everything that came from the "void" of nothingness.
A confession of responsibility does not make the things that were made legitimate. It does not make them "good". Conversely, christianity, as it has become popular, uses this confession to legitimize the pantheistic self so that it can become "good" ("God" in my lexicon).
By confessing his sins (making a world --another God -- from a "void" of nothingness), Jesus figured out how to forgive himself for the deed. In forgiving himself, he did return his state of mind to one of complete innocence ("sinlessness"), for which he became famous.
Christians, on the other hand, do not follow this example, and instead, deny any responsibility for the making of another world -- another God -- from a "void" of nothingness. And, by refusing to confess their sins, they have not figured out how to return their minds to a state of complete innocence. And for this reason, they continue to describe themselves as "sinners".
Above and beyond the pantheistic world of seas, tree and bees, there is a "good" which can be called anything at all, having no name at all. This, i believe, is the "Father" of which Jesus speaks, to which he considered himself equal. Being equal to the "Father", Jesus found himself with the "power" to transcend the lesser "god of this world" and escape its effects.
I think this is an important distinction because while anyone see themselves as equal to the god of this world (a material world of seas, trees and bees), one will never be able to transcend it's effects.
The key to self-forgiveness is to see the material world as coming from the "void" of nothingness, meaning, it was nothing then, and it is nothing now.
What is nothing? If one can figure this out, one can forgive oneself, and return to what is actually something: reality, good, Self.
1. Apparently a lot of discussion related to most if not all of the key words (searchable) that have been covered in the past few years can be useful, imo, without repeating them here again and again.
2. I think it would take much time to transform from one mindset to another. imo, Jesus as he explained himself was just an ordinary person like everyone else, besides he could be a leading figure (as his firm conviction perhaps after travelling and studying in many places/theories/cultures/religions/etc. - a wise-man indeed) envisioning a challenge against institutional religions.
3. In Stoicism, God is everything included - Jesus is part of the universe/God. Therefore no conflicts against any conventional religious terms/concepts/theories - as Jesus mainly said he was the son of God. Every human being without exception is a daughter/son of God!!!
Jesus' original idea I guess was trying to promote and market (much much less than 1/3 of) the Stoicism - a practical philosophy, into a popular daily-life philosophy. That's why it was/has been so successful in human history. He's very very visionary.
4. In the Gospel of Mary, Jesus didn't accept the term 'Sin' at all, afaik. The kind of Christian Systematic Theology (based on an outdated holy book which was one of the best books in Jesus age, imo) should be critically reviewed and updated to become more practical philosophy, like Stoicism.
Better just focus on the red letters said personally by Jesus.
5. I would believe most likely we can have a much better world, peaceful and mindful, when the world is able to truly implement the Jesus' daily-life philosophy.
Stoicism might be also another missing link, as I see, for the conventional religions to be updated in the future. LOL
Moral Jesus is a double sided coin whose currency demands that serving your fellow man is serving God, but to do otherwise will result in being "cut in sunder".
Bible Jesus is less than moral, his ethics are more than questionable.
This Messiah doesn't make morality the focus, to serve people because people matter or because they are human beings just like he was supposed to be. No, he offers a violent Hobson's choice. These so called teachings insert a God who on setting the moral standard that people are to do good to each other, immediately proceeds to degrade it, by declaring the only other option is to get bludgeoned with God's own nightstick.
It's a lesson on how to assault people to achieve what you want, not to do good unto others for the sake of doing good alone, for its own reward.
Religion is the act of unnecessarily moving pious belief in front of morality in order to claim it.
Stoicism no different.
It's putting on a blindfold to see light when light is already there. Expecting to see what is right, when what is right is already discernible.
Virtue is its own reward. True morality is morality for its own sake. Filtered through religion, both can only be diminished.
Looks like a strong opinion from a knowledgeable expert. Very good development!
Lots of evidence of Vikambara yogins nowadays,you can go to India and see them plenty.Vikambara - those folks that wander naked, though alive, they are beyond this world.Why doubt the Jesus existence?He was way moderate.
Many news nowadays about in India people eat air for living and survive!
ah but can he bend spoons
No new thing here : dry fasting ( no eating, no drinking) has been practiced by some Bouddhist monks for a long time.
Obviously, South East Asian have the quality of discretion.
I really don't see the point of wandering around naked.
Is it only for men ?
What if he gets aroused ?
"The science behind fasting" on Amazon Prime. Eating air and drinking water for 30 days plus has saved many from different ailments/diseases. Don't try it without medical supervision
You can claim Jesus was a charlatan, I get that;. But I'll lump you with Holocaust deniers if you're telling me he didn't exist.
On the contrary, it is the opposite of a Hobson's choice.
its the Perfect choice.
“God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world guilty, but to save the world through him. People who believe in God’s Son are not judged guilty. Those who do not believe have already been judged guilty, because they have not believed in God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:17, 18, NCV)
Understand that in my understanding God is outside of time. He already knows your life.
Now, you have choice be judged on the works of your life or be judged by the work of Jesus's sacrifice for you.
You know what all the rules boil down to.
Have you loved God with all your heart. Have you loved your neighbor as yourself?
If so, you are good. No worries on judgment day. I believe you could look at God and say I did it. I loved you with all my heart all the time and I loved my neighbor as myself all the time. However, we already saw someone who tried that route. The rich Prince who told Jesus he kept all the commandments. Then Jesus said if you will be perfect sell everything and follow me.
For those of us who were not perfect on the earth, we have an out. Its really the same out the prince got.
Its the choice between everything or nothing. The choice should be as easy as taking your next breath.
If you fail to merit your way to eternal life ...
you still have a choice for eternal life.
That choice is not a hobson's choice.
Its the easiest choice there is.
Adolf Hitler believed in God’s Son.
If you have the choice to either believe in God’s Son and be not judged guilty -or- not believe in God's son and be judged guilty, that is the very definition of Hobson's choice.
Love your neighbor as yourself (unless they are a slave / homosexual etc etc of course) ....or else is a threat more than anything else, not a moral standard.
By choosing a morally wanting , highly faulty supernatural God along with its questionable rules before what's moral, then you ain't even doing what's moral to begin with.
Easiest choice ain't always the best choice.
Religion to me is another name for an " off the shelf philosophy ".
Some like to cherry pick from established religions but one must take into account most religions were invented a long time ago in very different circumstances.
Some try to see patterns created from their own experiences and make their own philosophy.
1. the old hitler was a christian so Jesus is not moral canard.
However, Weikart makes it clear that Hitler’s pro-Christian statementswere little more than lip serviceto his churchgoing constituents. Although Hitler was born and raised in historically Catholic Austria, he lost his faith in the Church at an early age. Weikart writes that the young Adolf was a rebellious student who frequently quarreled with his high school religion teacher and often mocked Christianity in class. Weikart’s excellent command of German is on display when he notes that in Mein Kampfand in private correspondence Hitler frequently used the term Pfaffe, a disparaging German term for a priest, to refer to clergymen. Hitler’s long-established anti-clericalism was evident after his rise to power as well, when Goebbels’ propaganda machine portrayed the Catholic priesthood as dominated by sexual perverts (on a side note, does that tactic sound familiar?).
In fact, Hitler’s real views on Christianity were so bizarre that they would actually be amusing in their imaginative eccentricity,if not for the fact that they were part of the worldview of a psychopath whose genocidal policies killed 11 million civilians and unleashed the bloodiest war in history. Weikart writes that Hitler, like his favorite philosopher, Nietzsche, disliked Christianity, but admired the figure of Jesus Christ. In Hitler’s view, Jesus himself was a Roman or Greek (Hitler believed that the ancient Greeks and Romans were the precursors of the Nordic “master race”) killed by the perfidious Jews.
2. the choice avail yourself of God's grace or be judged on your life is not a hobson's choice at all. god's grace or being judge on your own life. that is not a take it or leave it. Perhaps you would get in without Jesus' help.
3. love your neighbor as you would love yourself... period.
It does not matter if they are gay or whatever.
Not saying its easy... but that is what Jesus is one of the 2 great commandments.
4. It makes no sense to call Jesus morally wanting. but, perhaps someday you will desire to avail yourself of his Grace.
"People who believe in God’s Son are not judged guilty. its the Perfect choice.".
Adolf Hitler believed in God’s Son. He made that 'Perfect choice'. Therefore by your own piously arrogant words, Hitler is not judged guilty.
No amount of twisted Catholic apologetics will make what you said reasonable.
You think one(take it - god's grace) or the other (leave it - and be judged - a threat also) is not a take it or leave it?
How come you imagine the choice between worship me or burn in hell is any more worthy a thing to say whether Kim Jong Un or Bible Jesus says it.
Jesus also tells you not to love your neighbor, yourself, your mother, father, son or daughter, more than him. Jesus compares your neighbor to dogs...period.
'If you don't do what I say you'll burn in hell, but I love you' , is a morally wanting Jesus.
By threatening damnation and divine retribution, Bible Jesus shows no grace.
Making excuses for odious demands on any grounds, least of all superstitious religious ones, is by definition, morally wanting.
Whatever your genetic environmental predilection is, you can only be true to your nature. In your heart you will know what is right or wrong. So Jesus is a construct of that sense of right or wrong. Stay true to it, and you are with Jesus. If your sense of right or wrong or lack of, turns you into a demon, than when you come across the righteous, you will be put down.
your hitler argument is absurd.
A belief is not lip service. True belief or faith would guide your actions.
hitler's actions shows no sign of belief in jesus. I believe God is smart enough to the know the difference.
(however, I hold open the possibility God will let people make that choice as they die or even after... I am not convinced we can rule out God's grace for someone any at any time. especially since we don't really understand time)
2. the choice may not be binary.
we don't really know what the choice are, when they happen or if they are permanent.
it could be multi tiered.
I note for an atheist you sure like to act like you know what God is and thinks.
C. S. Lewis reasons that it isn’t God who sends us to Hell. Those who will go there do so willfully, because they reject Christ’s free pardon for sin and judgment. Lewis writes,
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek, find. To those who knock, it is opened.”
The Jesus concept promises to bring a sword not peace. Requires people to hate themselves, their families and their brethren. Makes threats of damnation while at the time saying "I love you". Encourages others to consider themselves righteous for no other reason than saying they believe in the Jesus concept.
Question is how come people would accept and excuse that kind of wrong, if in their heart they knew what is right.
Hitler's declared belief and faith as he recorded it and professed it was no lip service. It was full hearted and like Jesus, he brought a sword.
Ignore and excuse all you want but it will not change the fact. Belief and faith everyone knows condones what's bad as well as pronouncing what's good both at the same time.
True belief or faith is not necessarily true morality. Why cloud the issue with them.
since this is an evidence thread...
Over the centuries, Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre has suffered violent attacks, fires, and earthquakes. It was totally destroyed in 1009 and subsequently rebuilt, leading modern scholars to question whether it could possibly be the site identified as the burial place of Christ by a delegation sent from Rome some 17 centuries ago.
Now the results of scientific tests provided to National Geographic appear to confirm that the remains of a limestone cave enshrined within the church are remnants of the tomb located by the ancient Romans.
Mortar sampled from between the original limestone surface of the tomb and a marble slab that covers it has been dated to around A.D. 345. According to historical accounts, the tomb was discovered by the Romans and enshrined around 326.
more at the link...
don't you all get tried of these guys taking one statement out of context.
for instance around 2 minutes 30 seconds in... "take no thought for the morrow".
is not what hitchens says it means.
anyone who reads the bible and knows the message would take it far differently than hitchens.
When we say peace be with you.
Or the peace of jesus be with you.
We are serious... there is a peace that comes over you when you really believe what jesus teaches.
Jesus is telling us not to stress out. Trust in God. He knows you. He provides better than you can worry.
No reason to be overcome by fear. To follow Jesus is to have peace. (at least times... not saying its easy.)
That is the core of the message... not the crap hitchens pretends.
2. To the contrary... there is evidence there could have been a census back then.
here is one source...
It could very possibly be a convenient mythical figure who never really existed and why ?
1. To teach the other Jews a peaceful way of life based on the previous teachings of John the Baptist etc.
2. To be a thorn in the side of the Roman occupation. A person the Romans looked for as a rebel but could not find because he never actually existed.
3. Once the message of Christianity was well known and had attracted a following this figure was said to be murdered by the Romans to squeeze the last bit of sympathy out of the myth. I think the Romans at the time would have written down the details of the trial had it actually taken place.
The job was now done. So often the winners of a conflict take the philosophy of the vanquished. The Romans adopted Christianity as their own. Just as Nazi propaganda is alive and well today amongst Hitler's fans.
That is merely evidence of limestone caves, and mortar, and marble around 350 years after the time of supposed Bible Jesus.
But then Myth pushers must grab at absolutely anything to call it evidence.
Peace be with you is a core message erudite and complete, devoid of any need to clutter it with superfluous fictional characters.
Like the pointless addition of an extraneous street sign,
confusing and unnecessary for something already fully obvious and abundantly clear .
Part of Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks( heptads). A heptad is seven and heptads is sevens of some sort. 77 is 'sevens' and 7x77 is 539.We know Cyrus gave his decree sometime between 539BC and 536BC (it was found at Ecbatana).And Daniel was written at least a century before Jesus' birth.
Christianity's main source is a sociopath - Paul.
However, the pillar of the religion of philosophy - Socrates - is also a made up figure by the same man known for allegories, and specifically, for bringing us Atlantis - Plato.
For extra credit have you ever noticed the similarities between the Buddha, Jesus and Socrates? Here is a hint. Life is temporal, the soul is eternal. Life is an illusion, etc.
Muslims love Jesus, too: 6 things you didn’t know about Jesus in Islam
By Jennifer Williams@jenn_ruth Updated Dec 18, 2017
I'm Jewish. I shunned Christmas for 30 years. Then I met my fiancée.
The story of how one deeply committed Jew came to embrace Christmas.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp Dec 22, 2017
" December 25, 2017
Seven men around the world who each claim to be Jesus Christ
THESE seven men in countries around the world each claim to be Jesus Christ reborn. Yeah. You be the judge.
AT LEAST seven men around the world claim to be Jesus Christ reincarnated, and many have a following of devoted believers."
The trouble with religion is that:-
Their promoters always look back for answers and never forward.
Philosophy etc. has moved forward a lot over the centuries not back.
There is always certain religious something that many philosophers seldom do!